Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rochdale Corporation Bill,

Watford Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Johnstone Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday, 24th May.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CLEVEDON WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Cleve-don Water Company," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MAIDENHEAD WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Maidenhead Waterworks Company," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SEVENOAKS WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Seven-oaks Waterworks Company," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TONBRIDGE WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order by the Minister of Health relating to Tonbridge Waterworks Company," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Wisbech Water Works Company," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YEADON WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Yeadon Waterworks Company," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Colonel Goodman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any official control or censorship is exercised over the presentation of matter by news-reels; and, if not, whether any steps are in contemplation in that direction?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): If by official censorship my Iron. and gallant Friend means censorship by the State, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and as regards the second part, I would refer him to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on 29th June last.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now announce the constitution of the advisory committee that is being set up by his Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the purpose of considering the Cinematograph Films Act, 1909?

Sir J. Simon: I regret that I am not in a position yet to add anything to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member on 12th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons


in receipt of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance allowance, respectively, for each division in Great Britain?

Table showing the numbers of payments of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance allowances made during the week ended 17th April, 1937, at Employment Exchanges in each administrative division.


Division.
Number of payments of unemployment benefit.
Numbers of payments of unemployment assistance allowances (excluding Supplementation Allowances).*


Under the General Scheme.
Under the Agricultural Scheme.


London
…
97,656
270
33,934


South Eastern
…
40,925
3,547
15,667


South Western
…
46,037
815
20,324


Midlands
…
73,092
1,051
50,323


North Eastern
…
75,306
1,426
61,33l


North Western
…
121,786
527
132,168


Northern
…
44,350
490
96,235


Scotland
…
84,892
1,144
128,848


Wales
…
46,180
496
90,954


Great Britain
…
630,224
9,766
629,784


These figures exclude payments made through associations and payments under the Special Schemes for the Banking and Insurance Industries, for which geographical analyses are not available.


* Supplementation allowances (i.e., allowances to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit) were paid in 2,338 cases.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of statutory benefit who are now receiving supplementary allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: In the week ended 17th April, 1937, supplementary allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board were paid to 2,338 persons who were in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit, including persons in receipt of agricultural benefit.

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent the Unemployment Assistance Board are paying allowances during the waiting period to persons entitled to statutory benefit?

Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that, during the week ended 30th April, unemployment allowances were authorised before their unemployment benefit pay day to 871 persons in whose cases no concurrent allowances in supplementation of benefit were subsequently necessary.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of cases disqualified for misconduct and voluntary

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply includes a Table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

resignation by the Unemployment Insurance Board between 1st January and 31st March, 1937, and the periods of disqualification in each case; and the number of cases which were disqualified from the date of loss of employment;

(2) the total number of claimants between 1st January and 31st March, 1937, to whom the board sent Form I. B. 5 (46); what is the number of claimants who, in the same period of disqualification, did not take any steps to claim benefit after receiving Form I. B. 5 (46); whether or not he approves of Form I. B. 5 (46); and whether a similar form is used by the Ministry in claims arising under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935?

Mr. Brown: I am in communication with the Insurance Unemployment Board as to whether the statistical information desired is available. Subject to the right of appeal to the Umpire in any contested claim for benefit the use of the form referred to is an administrative matter within the discretion of the board. The answer to the last part of the second question is in the negative.

Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further into the procedure


before the court of referees, to whether it cannot be made more fair less partial?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that this is a statutory scheme and the board is in charge of it. Perhaps we can examine together the information when it comes.

LAND SETTLEMENT, CUMBERLAND.

Captain Dower: asked the Minister of Labour the number of acres purchased in Cumberland for land settlement schemes; the amount paid per acre; the number of families placed on full-time holdings; and the total cost of each placing?

Mr. E. Brown: The area of land purchased in Cumberland for the settlement of unemployed men on full-time holdings is 2,158 acres. The average price paid for the land is £21 5s. per acre. The number of holdings to be provided is 187 and the number of families placed on holdings to date is 49. In addition, 29 men have been placed on the land in advance of their families. In respect of 133 holdings for which figures are at present available, the estimated cost of setting up each holding is £989. In addition, working capital is provided at the rate of £260 per man, of which £130 is repayable without interest.

Captain Dower: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he will consider increasing land settlement schemes in West Cumberland as they are undoubtedly doing a lot to provide employment?

Mr. Brown: That is an expression of opinion which, I am sure, will be welcomed.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour the total amount saved to the State by the operation of the household means test since the existing regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board became operative; what is the amount of money expended in the same period in salaries and expenses of investigating officers and others in the operations of the means test; and whether he will take the necessary steps to abolish the means test, and so save that expense?

Mr. E. Brown: As regards the first part see of the question, I would point out that and the effect of the existing Regulations has been to add to the rate of expenditure on unemployment assistance. For a variety of reasons it is not practicable to make any reliable estimate of the additional public expenditure that would be incurred by the complete abolition of the means test. I dealt with this matter very fully in my reply to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on 16th July last, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy. As regards the second part, the administrative cost incurred directly by the board between 16th November, 1936, and 31st March, 1937, was approximately £675,000. The answer to the third part is in the negative.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather from the reply that since that date there has been an increase and therefore no saving at all in the operation of the means test?

Mr. E. Brown: That conclusion ought not to be drawn from the statement I have made.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If that conclusion is not to be drawn how can the amount of allowance be greater than it was before? Is it not apparent that the operation of the means test has meant a decrease in the allowance?

Mr. E. Brown: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer to which I have called his attention he will find that other factors are taken into consideration.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS, SEASIDE ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour whether the employment offices under his control, in offering domestic employment to women at seaside establishments, have instructions to give particulars, in addition to wages offered, of the hours employees are expected to work, what time off shall be allotted to them, what sleeping accommodation is available; and whether, in the absence of this information, no such situations shall be offered?

Mr. E. Brown: Women applicants offered domestic vacancies at seaside establishments are informed of the conditions of employment, including those mentioned by the hon. Member, which are notified to the Employment Exchanges. In many cases information is not received


regarding hours of work and time allowed off, which may vary according to circumstances, and I fear it would be impracticable to insist on these particulars being supplied in all cases before the vacancies are brought to the notice of applicants.

Mr. Day: Will applications for these particulars be supplied and are employés justified in refusing the employment?

Mr. Brown: Of course it is of interest to employers in every case to make the information known. The hon. Member knows that there is a great demand and a small supply.

TRANSFEREES.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons transferred from Liverpool, Birkenhead and Bootle under schemes of his Department during the year 1936 and the first four months of this year, respectively, showing the number of boys and girls aged 14 to 18 and the number of men and women over 18 in each case?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having this information extracted so far as it is available and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

INSURANCE (OUTDOOR DOMESTIC SERVANTS).

Major Rayner: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has given further consideration to the question of bringing private chauffeurs, grooms and gamekeepers into the scheme of unemployment insurance, and can now make an announcement on the subject?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I have asked the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee to consider the general question of including outdoor private domestic servants in unemployment insurance and to advise me in the matter.

DERBYSHIRE.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were employed and how many were unemployed in the county of Derby in the most recent week for which figures are available?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of wage-earners on the colliery books of mines in Derbyshire at 24th April,' 1937, was 44,295. At 19th April, 1937, 3,449 insured persons, aged 14 to 64, in all occupations in the coal mining industry

classification, were recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges situated in Derbyshire. Separate figures for miners are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ENGINEER APPRENTICES.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour how many engineering firms in Scotland employ apprentices without wages for the first two years; and whether he will make representations to these firms for the purpose of ending this practice?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not in possession of information on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are a number of youths employed who for the first two years get no wages at all, and that they are doing jobs for which in other industries boys receive pay? If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with information on the subject will he take some steps to stop it?

Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to receive any information and look into it.

SALMON LAWS.

Major Hills: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government intend to introduce legislation to bring the salmon laws of Scotland up-to-date, seeing that the other parts of the United Kingdom have had the benefit of modern legislation while Scotland alone has been left out?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The question of legislation is being considered. The legislation required would, however, so far as I have been able to ascertain, be lengthy and complicated, and I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Boothby: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the herring legislation also needs to be brought up-to-date?

Mr. Cassells: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's reply, does he seriously suggest that that is any reason why Scotland should not be dealt with on the same basis as England?

Mr. Wedderburn: There are a great many objections to legislation being brought in at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S PARK, EDINBURGH.

Mr. Erskine Hill: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his Department have been able to provide any pavilion accommodation for those organisations using the King's Park, Edinburgh, for purposes of recreation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S.Hudson) (for the First Commissioner of Works): Yes, Sir; work on the erection of a pavilion has been started and is expected to be completed early in July.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN DANCE BANDS (PERMITS).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of permits that have been issued to musicians in foreign dance bands employed in this country for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and if, in view of the fact that British dance bands are forbidden entry into the United States of America and France, he will consider imposing similar restrictions on the entry into this country of similar performers?

Mr. E. Brown: It is not the policy of the Department to grant permits for foreign dance bands required for dance halls, restaurants or hotels, and accordingly no permits for bands of this type have been issued during the last 12 months. In view of the difficulties experienced by British bands in securing engagements in the United States of America, American dance bands have not been permitted to take engagements of any kind in this country for the past two years. No representations with regard to similar difficulties in the way of the entry of British bands into France have been made to me.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why permits to individual artistes are renewed?

Mr. Brown: That is another issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour who will represent His Majesty's

Government at the forthcoming session of the International Labour Conference?

Mr. Brown: It is proposed that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour shall represent the Government at this conference. I propose also to attend the conference myself if my engagements permit.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Muff: asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to announce the names of the committee to inquire into the administration of corporal punishment; and whether he will include in the terms of reference an instruction to report separately on juvenile and adult delinquency?

Sir J. Simon: I have been fortunate in securing the services of the Hon. Edward Cadogan, C.B., formerly a member of this House, as chairman of this committee, and I hope shortly to announce the names of the remaining members. The terms of reference will make it clear that the committee are to examine the various provisions of the law authorising corporal punishment for both adult and juvenile offenders. No doubt the committee will take account of the different considerations affecting different aspects of the problem and frame their report accordingly.

Mr. Muff: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask that he will communicate the names of the committee as quickly as possible to the Press as a great amount of public interest is being taken in this question?

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in determining the numbers of those who are to sit on the committee, that he will take into consideration the advisability of having one or two women?

Sir J. Simon: A complete list of the committee will be announced as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE CORONATION.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary what will be the average length


of duty worked by members of the Metropolitan police force during the period of the Coronation celebrations; how much will it be in excess of normal duty hours; and whether overtime rates are to be paid and alternative time off given?

Sir J. Simon: So far as practicable, police will work the usual eight-hour tour of duty, although the average tour to be worked on 12th May is likely to be 12 hours, and on other days overtime may have to be worked in individual cases. In accordance with the usual practice, time off in lieu of this extra duty will be given where possible, and where it cannot be given overtime allowance will be paid.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the deep feeling which exists on this question, would the Home Secretary arrange for a meeting of the policemen to be addressed by me on the subject of overtime and the steps necessary to get it stopped?

Sir J. Simon: I really do not think there is any deep feeling, but I quite realise that the hon. Member's object would be as far as possible to allay any such feeling if it existed.

Mr. H. G. Williams: How much overtime have the police had to work during the last 12 months through unnecessary attendance at Communist meetings?

Captain Strickland: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, as post offices will be closed on Wednesday, 12th May, being Coronation day, he will make arrangements whereby Army pensioners will be able to draw their pensions on Tuesday, 11th May, and thus avoid possible hardship?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I would refer my hon. Friend to the standing instructions of the post office which provide for disability pensions falling due on a public holiday being paid in advance. A reminder to postmasters with reference to 12th May had at my suggestion already been sent by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers encamped in Kensington Gardens are being called upon to pay about 10s. 3d. a day messing as

opposed to an average of about 3s, which they would normally be charged in their home messes; and whether he will arrange for grants to cover this extra amount, such grants not to include field allowances which are normally given in any case when officers are under canvas to cover extra expenses other than messing?

Major Sir George Davies (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Officers camped in Kensington Gardens in connection with the Coronation who are required to pay messing charges at the rate of 10s. 3d. a day are being granted special mess allowance at the following daily rates, in addition to ration and field allowances at the normal rates:

s.
d.


Subalterns
5
4


Captains
4
10


Majors and above
4
7

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSAULTS ON JEWS (LONDON).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary how many reports he has received during the last three months concerning attacks on Jews and Jewish property in the Metropolitan area; and what action he has taken?

Sir J. Simon: Four reports have reached me from the Commissioner of Police during the period in question, of cases of assaults on Jews and attacks on Jewish property. No one, I am glad to say, has been seriously injured and the damage to property was of a minor description. It is, of course, not possible for the police to ensure that no instances of disorders will occur, but every effort is made to afford protection for peaceful citizens. In particular the Commissioner states that large reinforcements of police have been drafted into the area affected on every occasion when there appeared probability of disorder, and have been employed in policing meetings and processions and patrolling the area generally both in cars and on foot.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, has any action been taken regarding one particular building owned by members of the Jewish faith that was attacked and had its windows broken some two or three weeks ago?

Sir J. Simon: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a case in Leyton. I have heard of it indirectly, but I have not read any official report about it yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATERNITY DISPUTES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider making blood-tests legally necessary in the case of paternity disputes brought into court?

Sir J. Simon: As the hon. Member realises, legislation would be necessary to give effect to this proposal, and I am not in a position to make any statement as to legislation on this subject.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman encourage legislation in this direction, seeing that blood-tests would be a very useful method of settling disputes which could not otherwise be settled, and in view of that, would he take steps to have the whole matter seriously considered?

Sir J. Simon: There are a great many matters which probably deserve further attention here, and I doubt whether this is one which could be put in the front of the Government programme. Of course, it is a matter upon which any private Member might hope to bring in a Bill at the proper time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ORDER ACT (UNIFORMS).

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a procession passed throug Victoria Street on Saturday last in which there was a display of emblems provocative in character and calculated to provoke disaffection against the constitution and democratic institutions of this country, and that there were numerous bodies of persons wearing distinctive uniforms; and what action he proposes to take to prevent any similar violation of the law and frustration of the recent decision of Parliament?

Sir J. Simon: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that on the occasion in question the only uniforms observed were those worn by busmen, bandsmen, and a Workers' Sports Association. A number of persons wore fancy dress, but no person was

observed by the police to be wearing anything which could reasonably be described as political uniform. Any banners carried were not of a character likely to provoke a breach of the peace, and they did not in fact provoke any sign of hostility. There was no disorder of any kind.

Sir H. Croft: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that there is absolute impartiality in the exercise of the law, and does he not regard large numbers of red flags and foreign banners as provocative in the West End just as other foreign emblems are provocative in the East End?

Sir J. Simon: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is every determination to be impartial in this matter, and I do not at all shut out from consideration cases which may arise in one part of London rather than another. I have given my hon. and gallant Friend the information which I have had about this particular case. I do not dispute his general proposition.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question addressed to him by the hon. and gallant Member is not evidence of sheer class bias?

Mr. G. Griffiths: He is colour blind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SENTENCE (LEEDS).

Major Milner: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to make any statement in regard to the representations made to him in favour of remission of the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment passed upon Hugh Phillips at Leeds assizes on 9th March?

Sir J. Simon: Phillips pleaded guilty and the responsibility for the decision as to the length of sentences of imprisonment rests with the Court and not with the Home Office. I have thought it right, however, in view of the youth of Phillips and the exceptional character of the case, to communicate with the Judge in connection with the consideration of the exercise of the prerogative of clemency. I should not feel justified in recommending immediate remission of the sentence. I have come to the conclusion, after reviewing all the circumstances, that the considerations which warranted the imposition by the Court of an exemplary


penalty will not preclude me from recommending at a future date a reduction of the term, and I intend to consider the case again when a further portion of the sentence has been completed.

Major Milner: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to thank him for the sympathetic and careful consideration which I know he has given to this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

NON-STAMPING.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the injustice caused to Miss Mann, of 1, Dakin Street, Stepney, as the result of her employer failing to put stamps on her health insurance card and subsequently becoming insolvent; and will he take steps to remedy such injustice in this case and other similar cases?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): Legal proceedings were instituted against the employer in this case, and the recovery of contributions, which is a matter for the Court, is proceeding as ordered by the Court. Payment of the outstanding arrears has been made on behalf of Miss Mann, and her title to benefit is therefore not affected. With regard to the last part of the question, I may add that employés have a statutory right of recovery from the employer of loss of benefit due to non-payment of contributions.

Mr. Rowson: In a case such as this, is it not a fact that the employer is the agent of the Government in collecting these contributions, and when he defaults it is not the duty of the Government to cover the member for any loss sustained?

Sir K. Wood: I agree with the hon. Member that there is a difficulty, but this matter was examined by the Royal Commission, which considered, for instance, whether there should not be some fund created for the purpose, but they advised against that course. In this particular case, I am glad to say that the member concerned has had her contributions paid and that her right to benefit is not affected. The Court has ordered the employer to pay, and I understand the payment is being made.

PANEL DOCTORS' FEES (INQUIRY).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to state the terms of reference and the personnel of the tribunal to inquire into the fees paid to panel doctors under the National Health Insurance scheme?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. Put quite shortly, the object of the inquiry is to investigate the question whether any, and, if so, what, alteration ought to be made in the amount of the doctor's capitation fee, having regard to any changes since 1924 in the cost of living, the working expenses of practice, the number and nature of the services rendered to insured patients and other relevant factors. I am glad to say that the services of the following gentlemen as members of the court have been secured:

The Rt. Hon. Lord Amulree, G.B.E., K.C., LL.D. (Chairman).
Mr. Thomas Howorth, A.C.A.
Mr. D. H. Robertson, M.A.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that this report will be issued soon enough to enable the Bill which he has promised to be presented to Parliament and passed into law before the Summer Recess?

Sir K. Wood: I am an optimist, and I hope that that may be so.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the case that this inquiry has been made necessary by the fact that you could not come to any understanding with the doctors?

Sir K. Wood: I think it is rather to be regarded as a friendly arrangement to have this matter dealt with by independent people. There were discussions upon it between the British Medical Association and myself and it was considered that this would be the best means of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Thorne: Are we to take it for granted that if the committee puts up a recommendation similar to the Government's offer to the doctors, that recommendation will be put into operation?

Sir K. Wood: I think we had better await the report.

Following are the terms of reference:

"We hereby appoint

The Right Hon. Lord Amulree, G.B.E., K.C., LL.D.,

Thomas Howorth, Esq., A.C.A.,

D. H. Robertson, Esq., M.A.,

to be a Court of Inquiry to inquire and report to His Majesty's Government whether any, and if so what, alteration ought to be made as from the 1st January, 1938, in the amount of the capitation fee (per insured person per annum) on the basis of which the Central Practitioners' Fund under Article 19 of the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations, 1936, and the corresponding Scottish Fund under Article 19 of the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Consolidated Regulations (Scotland), 1929, is calculated, having regard to any changes which may have taken place since 1924 in the cost of living, the working expenses of practice, the number and nature of the services rendered by insurance practitioners to their insured patients, and other relevant factors. The inquiry is to proceed on the assumption that as from the 1st January, 1938, employed persons under the age of 16 will have become entitled to medical benefit by virtue of amending legislation but that the conditions would not impose any obligation upon the practitioner to issue medical certificates to these persons.

This capitation fee is not to include any payment in respect of the supply of drugs and appliances or any payment to meet the special conditions of practice in rural and semi-rural areas. Payments to insurance practitioners in respect of these matters are the subject of separate arrangements and are outside the scope of the inquiry.

We hereby further appoint the Right Hon. Lord Amulree, G.B.E., K.C., LL.D., to be Chairman, and E. H. Phillips, Esq., O.B.E., of the Ministry of Health, to be Secretary of the said Court.

KINGSLEY WOOD.

WALTER E. ELLIOT.

5th May, 1937."

SPECIAL AREAS (SITE COMPANIES, LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether, in so far as local authorities are not already empowered by existing Statute to provide, out of rates, the moneys necessary to establish a site company in accordance with the provisions of the Special Areas (Amendment) Bill, he will, by legislation or otherwise, take steps to empower local authorities to take such action?

Sir K. Wood: I am advised that legislation would be required to give effect to this proposal. No Government Measure of this kind is at present in contemplation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

NON-PARLOUR HOUSES.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Health whether non-parlour houses with one bedroom now being built are being admitted for Government subsidy?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir; such houses attract subsidy when they are built as replacement houses in respect of slum clearance operations, or, where the circumstances warrant it, when they are provided for the abatement of overcrowding.

Mr. Whiteley: In view of the serious shortage of houses, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, with a view to easing the situation, by giving a subsidy?

Sir K. Wood: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think he will agree that it is better for the local authorities first to complete their replacement programmes to deal with overcrowding and then to consider the position as it will be when that has been done. There is a big programme still ahead of the local authorities in this important respect.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Health whether the non-parlour houses with one bedroom are being built to replace houses removed under slum-clearance schemes, or whether they are definite additions to ease the shortage of houses?

Sir K. Wood: Approximately 60 per cent. of the non-parlour dwellings with one bedroom approved in England and Wales since 1930 have been, or are being, erected to rehouse persons displaced from unfit houses. The remainder are to meet general housing needs and the relief of overcrowding.

AREA-CLEARANCE SCHEME, NEWLYN, CORNWALL.

Mr. R. Acland: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that, as a result of the proposed area-clearance scheme at Newlyn, Cornwall, many of the present occupier-owners, who are mostly fishermen, will be ruined, as they will be required to pay rent for the accommodation provided and will receive no compensation for their old homes; and what proposals he is prepared to make to deal with this urgent question in the interests of the people affected;
(2) whether he has seen the proposal for the rehousing of the fishermen who will be displaced by the proposed area-clearance scheme at Newlyn, Cornwall; whether he is satisfied that the new accommodation is suitable for fishermen in particular; whether they will contain lofts for fishing gear or other means for the regular drying of fishermen's clothes; and whether the new accommodation to be provided is suitably situated, having regard to the occupation to be followed by the occupiers?

Sir Francis Acland: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is considering the effect of the proposed area-clearance scheme at Newlyn, Cornwall, on the fishing industry; and what he proposes to do in order to safeguard the interests of the fishermen it is proposed to displace;
(2) whether he has investigated the particulars of the area-clearance scheme proposed at Newlyn, Cornwall; whether all the houses to be destroyed are occupied by fishermen, who are owner-occupiers; whether they are to receive any compensation; and whether he is satisfied that all the houses should be condemned?

Sir K. Wood: Resolutions declaring eight areas to be clearance areas have been passed by the town council and compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of the properties in the areas, together with a number of adjoining properties, have been made by the council and submitted to me for confirmation. As objections have been made to the orders, I shall arrange for a public local inquiry to be held in due course by an inspector of my Department, at which any persons interested will have an opportunity of appearing and giving evidence not only in relation to the existing houses but also with regard to alternative accommodation. The inspector will, after the close of the inquiry make a detailed examination of all the properties in the orders. I shall, of course, carefully consider all the evidence placed before me before reaching any decisions.

Mr. Acland: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether, in this inquiry, the matter will be considered not only from the point of view of public health, but also from that of the prosperity of the fishing industry?

Sir K. Wood: I am sure that every confidence can be placed in my inspectors who have great experience, and who will take into account all appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance on this point? Is the growing practice of using the question hour for the purpose of thanking Ministers, in order?

Mr. Speaker: I should be loath to rule out of order expressions of thanks which are only a form of good manners, but perhaps, in the interest of saving time, it would be better to take those expressions of thanks for granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

HOSPITALS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the report of the Voluntary Hospitals Commission and of the increasing contributions by public authorities to voluntary hospitals, he will take steps to require that the finances of voluntary hospitals shall be pooled and that greater co-ordination shall be effected between voluntary and public hospitals?

Sir K. Wood: I have noted with interest that the Voluntary Hospitals Commission, while not recommending the immediate pooling of hospital finances, suggests the creation of regional funds, but I have no powers in this matter, which is one for consideration by the governing bodies of the hospitals. I may assure the hon. Member that I shall continue to encourage co-operation between voluntary and public hospitals, which, I am glad to say, is already increasing steadily.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, are any steps likely to be taken by his Department in order to ensure that more complete medical service is rendered to the population requiring that service?

Sir K. Wood: I will gladly consider any suggestions of the hon. Member. I dare say he knows that I am from time to time endeavouring to bring about such co-operation which he will agree is so desirable.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the very serious state


of hospitals in this country, and does he not think the time has come when State aid should be given to all hospitals?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I do not think that would be a fair assumption.

CRIPPLES (TREATMENT, COST).

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health the annual cost to local authorities for the treatment of cripples and orthopædic cases?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the desired information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPULATION (REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S INVESTIGATION).

Sir H. Croft: asked the Prime Minister whether he is taking steps to ascertain the facts about the decrease in the population; and whether it is proposed to appoint a Royal Commission to report upon this subject and to suggest remedial measures?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health recently stated, the Registrar-General is continuing and extending his investigations and researches into this matter. Consultation is also proceeding so as to secure the co-operation of the committee recently formed under the chairmanship of Professor Carr-Saunders. I think at the present stage this is the most useful course to adopt.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether unemployment will be taken into consideration in connection with this inquiry?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.

Mr. Holmes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the House any further information as to the manner in which the National Defence Contribution will be assessed?

Mr. Touche: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any further statement with regard to the proposed National Defence Contribution?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I am pursuing my inquiries, but they are not yet complete,

and accordingly I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Mr. Holmes: Is it a fact that at a private meeting of Members the right hon. Gentleman stated this week he was favourably considering—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I will omit that part of the question. Is it the fact, that on a certain occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that he was favourably considering a proposal to include the profits of 1936 in the computation for the profit standard?

Mr. Chamberlain: The meeting to which my hon. Friend refers was a private meeting.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer went in and opened the innings and carried out his bat?

Mr. Paling: Can we have these statements made to the House and not to private meetings?

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE BILL.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the substantial progress made in the Report stage of the Marriage Bill, and the fact that it was not possible to complete the Report stage on Friday, 16th April, and that this House did not meet on Friday, 23rd April, he will consider finding time for the completion of the Report and Third Reading stages, in view of the considerable majorities on Friday, 16th April, in favour of the Bill?

The Prime Minister: In view of the advanced stage which the Private Member's Bill has reached, and of the special circumstances mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, the Government, while continuing to regard the Measure as a Private Member's Bill, hope to afford an early opportunity, after the Whitsuntide Recess, for the consideration of its remaining stages in this House.

Mr. De la Bère: May I very sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, and as this may be the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity of doing so on the Floor of the House, may I say to him in the words of the late Rudyard Kipling:
Lead us once again, Mowgli.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (ECONOMIC DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are continuing to explore the ground with a view to negotiating an economic agreement with the United States of America; if so, whether any progress has been made; and when the period of preliminary exploration will be over and negotiations begun?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has explained to the House, informal and exploratory discussions have for some time been proceeding with the United States Government with a view to ascertaining whether a basis exists for trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. These discussions are still proceeding, but I cannot say how long they will take or what their outcome will be.

Mr. Boothby: May we take it from the Prime Minister that the Government are, at any rate in principle, favourable to such a proposal?

The Prime Minister: I would rather leave my answer as it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE MANUFACTURE AND TRADING IN ARMS (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. White: asked the Prime Minister whether the White Paper in reference to the report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture and Trading in Arms is now ready for publication?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, the White Paper is now available in the Vote Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION AND EXCHEQUER GRANTS).

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount paid by way of contributions by the Government of Northern Ireland to the Treasury in each year since 1922–23 to 1936–37; and the amount paid by way of grants from the Exchequer to the Government of Northern Ireland in the same years?

Mr. Chamberlain: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows in column r the Imperial Contribution paid by the Government of Northern Ireland.

Column 2 shows the payments from the Exchequer to Northern Ireland (a) under the Unemployment Insurance Agreements; (b) as special grants for Special Constabulary, Malicious Injuries, etc., in the initial years of separation; (c) for buildings under Sections 24 and 34 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

Column 2 does not include the amount, approximately £656,000 a year, collected from tenants and retained by the Government of Northern Ireland under Section 26 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in respect of land purchase annuities under agreements entered into before the passing of the Act. (An equivalent sum is paid as a nonrecoverable charge out of the Imperial Exchequer to the National Debt Commissioners.)

—
Northern Ireland Contribution.
Payments to Northern Ireland.


(1)
(2)



£
£


1922–23
6,685,600
3,994,200


1923–24
4,517,900
3,321,100


1924–25
3,175,000
1,420,800


1925–26
2,275,000
2,073,700


1926–27
1,350,000
1,012,300


1927–28
1,450,000
421,300


1928–29
1,175,000
667,100


1929–30
855,000
588,200


1930–31
545,000
827,400


1931–32
298,000
474,900


1932–33
75,000
182,800


1933–34
76,000
43,700


1934–35
24,000
500


1935–36
(a) 365,000
753,600


1936–37
(b) 500,000
1,040,200


(a)Anticipated.


(b)This was the provisional figure at the beginning of the year. The provisional out-turn shows that the amount available for Imperial Contribution and surplus was £880,000 instead of £503,000 as originally estimated.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the low rates of interest


prevailing at the present time, he will take steps to alter the basis on which means are calculated under the Old Age Pensions Acts so as to remove the hardships now caused to many old age pensioners?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 5th November last to the hon. Baronet the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson).

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the basis on which means are calculated for old age pensions was fixed in 1919, when the prevailing rate of interest was twice what it is to-day, and in view of that fact is it not time that the whole matter was reconsidered?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I recognise the point which the hon. Member makes, but I would remind him that the rate of interest is only one of the considerations which enter into the calculation. Perhaps he will read the answer which I have given, and later on, if necessary, put down a question, to which I will endeavour to reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL (OFFICIALS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to prevent unnecessary addition to officials in connection with schemes for the Livestock Industry Bill?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have been asked to reply. The staff which will be required to enable the Livestock Commission to carry out their functions under the Livestock Industry Bill, if and when that Measure becomes law, will be determined by Ministers with the approval of the Treasury. The hon. Member may rest assured that no unnecessary staff will be appointed.

Mr. De la Bère: May I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and ask whether it is not a fact that it is an increase in livestock and not of officials that is required?

Mr. Messer: Will an assurance be given that no members of the staff will lose their positions in consequence of the coming into force of this Measure?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Perhaps the hon. Member will study the procedure under the Bill.

FEEDING STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to assist all milk producers in this country to produce an increase of homegrown feeding stuffs, since the high prices of foreign feeding stuffs are making milk production uneconomical?

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is a matter for milk producers themselves to decide what proportion of their feeding stuffs they will produce on their farms.

Mr. De la Bère: Is this not a case which the National Food Production Act, if it came into being, could deal with and help the country forward with?

Mr. Ramsbotham: This is obviously a matter for the milk producers, and I expect that they know their own business as well as the hon. Member.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: While thanking the Minister for his advice to producers, may I ask whether he will not advise the cow which provides the milk to produce it on less foodstuffs?

Oral Answers to Questions — MAIN ROADS (CYCLE TRACKS).

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the use of main roads by bicyclists where separate tracks have been constructed for their special benefit and to the extent of such misuse, particularly on the Great West Road and the Western Avenue; and whether, consequently, he will take suitable measures to discourage bicyclists in this respect?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): These tracks were constructed for the special convenience of cyclists, in order that they might travel free from constant apprehension and anxiety, and also in fulfilment of the principle that there should be different tracks for different classes of vehicles travelling at different speeds and by different methods of propulsion. Observation shows that these tracks are appreciated by the overwhelming majority of cyclists, and my


right hon. Friend hopes that the minority will, to the general and individual advantage of all road users, use the facilities provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION (DE-ICING DEVICES).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Goodrich Rubber Company have produced a de-icer for aeroplanes; for what reason Imperial Airways continue to experiment with another system now being slowly developed by the Dunlop Rubber Company; and whether he will suggest to Imperial Airways that the Goodrich de-icer should be fitted on all their machines until such time as they have further developed the Dunlop deicer?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Grant-Ferris) on 28th April, a opy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, I do not think that sufficient experience has been gained to justify pronouncing in favour of any particular device. In these circumstances I think it would be agreed that it would not be right for me to take the initiative in suggesting to Imperial Airways the adoption of the Goodrich de-icer in preference to the system with which they are experimenting.

Mr. Perkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman spend the Whitsuntide recess in flying over to America and seeing for himself how extraordinarily efficient this device is?

Sir P. Sassoon: I am fully aware of the qualifications of the Goodrich Rubber Company's device, but the advantage of the Dunlop system is that it can be fitted to all vulnerable parts.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consent has been given by him to the proposed arrangement by which the sugar production of the Colonies will be cut down by 7 per cent.; and whether an opportunity will be given for this matter to be considered by the Governments of the

Colonies concerned, and by Parliament, before any final decision is taken?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I think the hon. Member has seen in certain organs of the Press an incomplete report of proposals which are being discussed at the International Sugar Conference. It is not proposed to undertake any obligation in the terms stated, but I must defer any full statement until the Conference is concluded. I anticipate that opportunities will be available for discussion in Parliament before any international Agreement which may be reached is ratified.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the results of the International Sugar Conference?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the International Sugar Conference has reached an agreement on all points of substance. Pending its signature, however, I am not in a position to give details of its contents, but I may say that it provides for the regulation of the quantities to be exported from the principal producing countries during a period of five years. I would add that in the event of the agreement coming into operation it is the intention of His Majesty's, Government in the United Kingdom to invite Parliament to stabilise the existing rates of general Imperial preference during a similar period. The additional Colonial preference will also be continued, subject to a minor modification of its terms; on that a further announcement will be made.

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall get a White Paper giving the terms of the agreement?

Mr. MacDonald: As quickly as possible. The documents are being prepared now. Everything has been cleared up and the preparation of the documents is in hand. There are certain questions relating to the signature of them to be dealt with, and as soon as that is done I see no reason why a White Paper should not he issued without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL PRODUCTS (MARKETING).

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken to assist the marketing of the products of the Colonial Empire?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am glad to have this opportunity of announcing that His Majesty's Government have approved proposals for a scheme to promote marketing of Colonial produce in the United Kingdom and overseas. With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate a fuller statement regarding this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

As a result of the careful examination of the question by an inter-Departmental Committee, His Majesty's Government have approved proposals for a scheme to promote the marketing of Colonial produce in the United Kingdom and overseas. It is proposed that this scheme should be supervised by a board to be called "The Colonial Empire Marketing Board," of which the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be chairman and which will include representatives of the business world, including the marketing side of Colonial products.

The board will possess executive and not merely advisory functions. Its activities will be closely co-ordinated with the activities in economic matters of the Colonial Office, but it will have its own office and secretariat for which financial provision will be sought in due course. Expenditure for the board on the basis proposed will probably be of the order of £52,000 a year when the scheme is in full operation.

It is proposed that expenditure from United Kingdom funds on scientific research arising out of the activities of the Colonial Empire Marketing Board will be met from the Colonial Development Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (STANDARD OF LIVING).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the statement in the annual report of the Department of Migration at Jerusalem that the standard of living of

the average inhabitant of Palestine, including Arabs, had at least not deteriorated he will make a statement showing whether or not the economic position of the Arab and Jewish population has improved during the period of Jewish immigration under the mandate?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The statement in the annual report of the Department of Migration for 1936, to which the hon. Members refers, is extensively qualified in the succeeding sentences, and the final conclusion of the Commissioner for Migration is that the question is open, and must remain open until the means are provided for conducting detailed research into the variation of standard of living and real income in Palestine. In the circumstances I should not wish to make any definite statement on the matter at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MARINE ENGINES (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. Louis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the repeal of so much of Part 1, Section 11, of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which permits free entry when goods imported into the United Kingdom are consigned direct to a registered shipbuilding yard; and whether his advises show that such assistance to Hull builders is or is not any longer needed to the detriment of marine engineers?

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the value of the imports of marine internal-combustion engines admitted free of duty into registered shipbuilding yards during the year ended 1936 amounted to over £395,000 as compared with £126,000 in the previous 12 months; and whether he will take steps to protect this industry from this unfair foreign competition?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): My attentions has been drawn to the increase in duty free imports to registered shipyards during 1936, but as at present advised my right hon. Friend sees no sufficient reason for proposing the amendment of Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932.

Mr. L. Smith: Having regard to the outstanding advance in the shipbuilding industry during the last few years, does not my hon. Friend consider that to-day this exemption, which has so adversely affected the marine engineering trade, is no longer necessary and that it is hardly equitable to all the interests concerned?

GERMANY.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government regard themselves free, despite the terms of Article 10 of the trade agreement with Germany, to impose quantitative restrictions on goods imported from Germany?

Dr. Burgin: His Majesty's Government are free to impose restrictions on the importation of goods the produce or manufacture of Germany in the cases specified in Article 10 of the Anglo-German Treaty of Commerce of 1924.

Mr. Williams: May I take the answer as meaning that the interpretation which I placed on the Treaty in the course of the Debate on the Livestock Industry Bill the other evening was substantially accurate?

Dr. Burgin: That is hardly a question to which an answer can be given at question time. The hon. Member would be going too far to suggest that the interpretation he gave was full or accurate. I might add that no meat is imported from Germany or from any other European country, and no livestock from any foreign country.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, but, having regard to the fact that he stated that my interpretation was entirely new and completely misleading, may I ask whether he still adheres to that description?

Dr. Burgin: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

SHIPS, BRITISH REGISTRATION.

Mr. Donner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the intricate questions of policy and international law arising from the insistence of certain ships flying the British flag to pay calls at and trade with the Basque ports, he will examine the identity and

ownership of the merchant ships principally involved and subsequently lay this information before Parliament?

Dr. Burgin: Particulars as to the ownership of merchant ships are to be found in the official Register Book at the port of registry of the ship, which is open to inspection by any member of the public, and also in Lloyd's Register of Shipping, to which Supplements are issued fortnightly. In the circumstances, a Return such as that suggested by my hon. Friend would not seem to serve any useful purpose.

STEAMSHIP "HELMSTRATH."

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that four British seamen, part of the crew of the steamship "Helmstrath," who joined the ship at Barry docks, are now stranded in Gibraltar; that the captain had them imprisoned in Gibraltar for being absent without leave for two days while the ship was in Valencia; that he then refused to take them back on the ship and that whatever wages were due will be seized for their present maintenance; and will he take steps to secure their return home before they are completely destitute?

Dr. Burgin: I understand that four seamen from this vessel were imprisoned at Gibraltar on 5th April following their conviction at the local police court, on a charge brought by the master under the Merchant Shipping Acts, of wilful absence from the ship without leave. They have now, I am informed, returned to this country.

TRAMP SHIPPING SUBSIDY.

Mr. Kirby: asked the President of the Board of Trade what sums have been paid by the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee to respective shipping companies with registered offices on Merseyside; and whether the crews of the vessels covered by the subsidy are entirely British, working under conditions laid down by the National Maritime Board?

Dr. Burgin: The names and addresses of all recipients of tramp shipping subsidy in respect of the years 1935 and 1936, together with the amounts of subsidy paid in each case, are shown in the White Papers entitled "Statement of the distribution of tramp shipping subsidy" —Cmd. 5129 and 5420 respectively.
As regards the second part of the question, owners claiming subsidy must satisfy the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee that British crews have been employed whenever possible, and that the conditions laid down by the National Maritime Board have been complied with if applicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been expended by his Department in scientific and industrial research in each complete year since 1920; and in what directions the money has been expended?

Dr. Burgin: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the main expenditure of the State on scientific and industrial research is borne upon the Votes of other Departments, but during the period referred to, the Board of Trade have expended in grants in aid of research by the dye-making industry £11,065 in 1921, £3,500 in each of the years 1922 and 1923, and £2,875 in 1924. In addition, some small expenditure has also been incurred in connection with special matters calling for research referred to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, such as the cause of dry rot in life-boats and the use of kapok in connection with lifejackets.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WESTLEIGH COLLIERIES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the distress caused by the stoppage of Westleigh collieries; and can he give any further information as to when they will be restarted?

Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I can at present add nothing to the answer given to the hon. Member last Thursday.

Mr. Tinker: If I repeat the question after Whitsuntide, will the Minister try in the meantime to get something definite from this colliery company because we would like to know what the position is?

Captain Crookshank: I would remind the hon. Member that I can only obtain

any information on this subject through the courtesy of the company concerned, and they have already stated that they hope to reopen and are in negotiation to that end.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the serious distress caused in the neighbourhood of these collieries, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to repeat his question to the company so that if there is any hope it will be given to the people living there.

Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. Gentleman try in the meantime to get to know something definite? I know his position, but a word from him will get a reply more quickly than a word from anybody else.

Captain Crookshank: I am always trying to do a great number of things, but this is not a matter in which I can myself do anything.

COMMITTEES OF INVESTIGATION.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is his intention to take the opportunity in forthcoming coal legislation dealing with coal-mining royalties also to strengthen the procedure dealing with the committees of investigation?

Captain Crookshank: I am not in a position to say exactly what form the proposed legislation will take, but the hon. Member will be aware that legislation to strengthen the position of the committees of investigation has been promised.

Sir R. Clarry: Will the committees of investigation have independent chairmen, and what procedure will be taken to ensure the carrying out of the decisions of the committees?

Captain Crookshank: Independent chairmen of legal attainments have already been appointed. As regards the second question, I made a statement in the House on 24th June last indicating the line which I had in mind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look that up.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the Minister suggest that all men of legal attainments are really independent?

Captain Crookshank: I do not say anything about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITS, LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men who, during the year 1936, presented themselves for enlistment at the Liverpool recruiting office; and the number of such men who were rejected as physically below Army standard?

Sir G. Davies: I have been asked to reply. The number of applicants to enlist, in the City of Liverpool, during 1936 was 3,692. Of this number, 1,837 were rejected on medical or physical grounds.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (GOVERNORS' RESPONSIBILITIES).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in seeking a solution for the present political impasse in India, he will be careful not to whittle down in any particular the special responsibilities of the Governors as defined in the Act?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): It is not open to His Majesty's Government to whittle down or otherwise modify the provisions of the Act and of the Governors' Instruments of Instructions in respect of their special responsibilities except with the approval of Parliament.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will it be possible to meet the Congress leaders in order to ascertain whether, in fact, they are asking for any repeal or quasi-repeal of the Act?

Mr. Butler: I must stick to the answer to the question on the Paper.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that sooner or later India will have to get its independence?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the bombing of Guernica is causing concern all over the country; that religious bodies and other organisations have carried resolutions asking our Government to bring it to the notice of the League of Nations so that it can be dealt with; and will he state what action he proposes to take?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson).

Sir H. Croft: Is it not a fact that certain charges have recently been made which are as yet not substantiated, and will my Noble Friend discourage these various charges on which up to date there is no conclusive proof?

Viscount Cranborne: I do not think that that really arises on this question. The blame for the occurrence is not attributed in the question.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not that all the more reason for appointing an independent international commission to investigate the charges?

Viscount Cranborne: Certainly it points to the fact that it is desirable to consider whether that should be done.

Mr. Donner: Is it not a fact that in the same week as the bombing of Guernica, three open towns were bombed and bombarded by the Madrid Government?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the substance of General Franco's reply to the request for acquiescence in the project of evacuating the civil population of Bilbao and of the alternative proposals for safeguarding noncombatants' lives put forward by General Franco?

Viscount Cranborne: Yes, Sir. The following is a summary of the reply received from the insurgent authorities on this subject. While expressing appreciation of the humanitarian spirit and the impartiality of His Majesty's Government, the message, after adducing certain complaints against the Spanish and Basque Governments, pointed out that Bilbao was subject to a blockade and that the air action being taken against the traffic in the port and neighbouring military objectives made it impossible to guarantee the safety of operations in the port. The message added that it was unnecessary to evacuate the civil population through a foreign country. As an alternative, a safety zone in territory between Bilbao and Santander was proposed, provided that the International Red Cross


Committee could guarantee that the zone would not be used for military purposes. The insurgent authorities, the message added, would also be willing to admit women, children and old people to insurgent territory without distinction of political creed, with the exception of those who might be found guilty of crimes.

Sir A. Knox: Does not this reply of the Nationalist leader show that his attitude towards the civil population is just as humane as that of any sentimental supporter of the Spanish Government in this country?

Mr. Mander: Was not his attitude to the civil population very clearly indicated at Guernica?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the arrival of further foreign aeroplanes in Spain during the month of April?

Viscount Cranborne: Reports tending to show that aircraft and aero-engines were delivered since the beginning of March to both sides in Spain have been received, but none of these reports could be confirmed by the first-hand evidence of a British official.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware of reports, apparently based on trustworthy information, that during the last two weeks of April large numbers of German bombers and Italian chasers arrived in Spain? If that be so, does it not indicate that the placing of observers on the frontiers of Spain is a system which is proving to be completely ineffective?

Viscount Cranborne: I have said that we received several reports of Various kinds. The hon. Member will realise that the question of aircraft is an immensely difficult and complicated one, and it is a matter which must be carefully considered. Even if it had not been completely tackled, I still think that the supervision scheme is a great advantage.

Mr. Henderson: Will His Majesty's Government make representations to the Non-Intervention Committee to consider this problem of aeroplanes?

Viscount Cranborne: I think all aspects of the matter are as much in the minds

of the Committee as in the mind of the hon. Member.

Mr. Benn: Was the question of the delivery of German aeroplanes put to the German Ambassador on the occasion of his visit to the Foreign Office yesterday?

Viscount Cranborne: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that we specifically raised this question of aircraft in the Debate of 15th March, can the Noble Lord tell us what action the Government have taken and what positive proposals they have made to the Non-Intervention Committee?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir, the position, as I have already explained, is that our object in the supervision scheme —and it is the object of all concerned—has been to get an effective agreement as regards supervision, to prevent as far as possible arms going to either side in Spain. There are these difficult questions, and they are under consideration, but it is not an easy matter. It is no good hon. Members saying that a specific scheme can be brought forward quite easily.

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a debate.

Mr. Ede: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the British steamer "Greathope" was, when two hours 10 minutes out of Gibraltar, stopped by the rebel warship "Dato" on 26th April, 1937; that the "Greathope" was compelled to return to Gibraltar by the "Dato"; that the "Greathope" reached Gibraltar at 5 p.m., about four hours 35 minutes after sailing from that port; that no British man-of-war was sighted by the "Great-hope" or rendered any help; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): According to the reports I have received, the British steamship "Greathope" was intercepted by a Spanish insurgent gunboat, probably the "Antonio Canovas del Castillo," at 2 p.m. on 26th April when she was four miles from Pogon Lighthouse on passage from Valencia to Antwerp with a cargo of fruit. She had sailed from Gibraltar


at 12.30 a.m. on the same day. In spite of the fact that the master informed the captain of the Spanish gunboat of the nature of the cargo and of the destination of the ship, the steamship "Greathope" was ordered to proceed to Gibraltar. No request for naval assistance was received from the steamship "Greathope," and, consequently, the naval authorities were unaware of the incident until the vessel arrived at Gibraltar. The vessel subsequently sailed on the following day without incident, under the escort of His Majesty's Ship "London." The British naval authorities at Gibraltar have asked for an explanation of the action of the Spanish gunboat in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to negotiations between this country and Japan concerning their interests in China; and whether the Government of the United States of America has been invited to co-operate?

Viscount Cranborne: There have been no formal negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government concerning their respective interests in China. A number of informal conversations have, however, taken place in recent months with the Japanese Ambassador which have had as their object the better ordering of Anglo-Japanese relations generally, but no concrete suggestions have so far been made by either side in regard to their interests in China or any other matter. The desirability of keeping other interested Governments informed has not been overlooked.

Mr. Mander: Is it hoped in due course to convert these informal conversations into formal negotiations?

Viscount Cranborne: If the situation warrants it.

Mr. Benn: Is there any question of the recognition of the so-called State of Manchukuo?

Viscount Cranborne: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (GERMANS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the memorandum despatched to the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations by the German Nazis in South-West Africa; whether it has been received by the League; what is the nature of this communication; and when it is likely to be considered?

Viscount Cranborne: I have no knowledge that any such memorandum has been despatched, though I have seen statements in the Press that this may be contemplated.

Mr. Mander: Is it not gratifying to see this German interest in the League of Nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SIMONSTOWN BASE.

Mr. Mander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the arrangements that have been made for the British Navy to make use of the Simonstown base; and what plans for co-operation between the Fleet and the South African air force have been made?

Mr. Lindsay: The conditions under which the freehold title of Admiralty lands at Simonstown was transferred to the Union Government in 1922 provided for their continued use by the Admiralty for Naval purposes, and as far as I know, no difficulty has arisen. As regards the second part of the question, constant liaison is maintained between the Commander-in-Chief, Africa Station and the Union Government.

TEMPORARY MALE CLERKS.

Mr. Guy: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when his Department proposes to promulgate the terms of the agreement dated 26th February last concerning a new flat rate of pay for temporary male clerks; and whether he will antedate any increase of pay under the agreement to the date of the agreement?

Mr. Lindsay: The agreement has been circulated within the Admiralty and is on the point of being promulgated to the


outport establishments in an Admiralty Fleet Order. The increases of pay will be ante-dated to 1st February, 1937, as provided in the agreement.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday, 24th May."—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS REPORTED.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time upon Monday, 24th May.

EAST ANGLESEY GAS BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

WADEBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

NEWQUAY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

County Councils Association Expenses (Amendment) Bill,

Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Bill,

Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill,

Maternity Services (Scotland) Bill,

Special Areas (Amendment) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Nottinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Bill, without Amendment.

West Ham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of the Conservators of Ashdown Forest; to confer further powers upon the said Conservators and to provide for contributions towards their expenses by certain authorities; and for other purposes." [Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the construction and maintenance of a bridge in the counties of Berks and Buckingham across the River Thames and approach roads thereto; and for other purposes." [Berkshire County Council Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Hastings and for purposes incidental thereto." [Hastings Extension Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the closing of the Churches of certain benefices in the City of Sheffield and for the sale or disposal thereof and of the Churchyards appurtenant thereto; and for other purposes." [Saint Paul's and Saint James' Churches (Sheffield) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Kent Electric Power Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Kent Electric Power [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the County Council of the Administrative County of Hertford the Councils of the City of St. Albans and of the boroughs of Hemel Hempstead and Watford the Urban District Councils of Bushey Chorleywood and Rickmansworth and the Rural District Councils of Barnet Hatfield Hemel Hempstead St. Albans and Watford all in the County of Hertford and the Urban District Council of Potters


Bar in the County of Middlesex; to authorise the Board to construct main sewers and other works and to acquire lands for the disposal of sewage; to amend certain provisions of the Hertfordshire County Council Act, 1935; and for other purposes." [Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage &c.) Bill] [Lords.]

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords].

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

HASTINGS EXTENSION BILL [Lords].

SAINT PAUL'S AND SAINT JAMES' CHURCHES (SHEFFIELD) BILL [Lords].

KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords].

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE &C.) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. Speaker: A great many of the Amendments which have been put down to this Measure are not in order on the ground that they would increase the charge on the public revenue. The first of the Amendments which is in order is that in the name of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan).

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to special voluntary contributors who cease to pay contributions, or pay contributions irregularly.)

12.3 p.m.

Mr. Lathan: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (7).
I can imagine that the Minister of Health will be metaphorically licking his lips this morning at the prospect of dealing with the arguments in relation to the Amendments which have been placed upon the Order Paper, and I therefore frankly confess at the outset that the effect of this Amendment would not be quite what we should desire. I had hoped that it would have been possible to select the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) because under it the intention we have in mind would be more adequately carried out. As we have pointed out on other occasions, the Bill is of a contradictory character. It professes to, and to a fairly substantial extent does, confer benefits upon a large number of employed people who hitherto have not been provided for in the matter of pensions or insurance benefits, and I have indicated that we welcome the proposal to provide benefits for those for whom no provision has hitherto been made, but, unfortunately the Minister has had—or those who have advised him have had—apparently, some other purpose in mind, because while the Measure will provide advantages in one direction, it will deprive large sections who are entitled to advantages under existing conditions—or, rather, their successors—of those advantages.
At present, persons who are ill are excused contributions. If there were an Amendment of the character which I have indicated, it would mean that those whose illness exceeded the normal 13 weeks would come under the disability allowance upon recovering from that illness, and that they would not thereafter be able to claim any excusal from contributions, if they subsequently fell ill from the same disease. Persons who recovered after retirement, and subsequently became ill, would also be affected. The position under the Clause would be very serious for people who retire before 65 years of age, as considerable numbers do. I have found it difficult, and so have some of my hon. Friends, to understand the Minister's purpose in this proposal. We cannot free our minds of suspicion in certain directions, but I cannot believe that the Minister desires any such result as the detrimental effects which I have indicated. I hope that he will be able to give us some assurance.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I beg to second the Amendment.
While my hon. Friend was speaking, I noticed a pained look come over the face of the Minister as though he had some difficulty in following the point. I hope to be able to put the point to him in a way that he will be able to appreciate and to accept. The Sub-section is a departure in an unsatisfactory direction from the present arrangements regarding excusing contributions during incapacity. At the present time, the weeks in which the insured person is sick, ill and incapacitated, are excused. Under the proposal of the Clause, it is only after 13 weeks have elapsed. We regard that as a definite worsening of the present arrangements.
It is unfortunate that this worsening provision should be tucked away in a Bill which is stated to be a big improvement upon the insurance arrangements. Insured persons who retire on pension at the age of 6o have to wait for their pension benefits for five years. At that later stage of life, and during those five years, men or women are frequently afflicted with illness. Under the present arrangements, if they are incapacitated from work their insurance contributions are excused, but the Minister now proposes to allow no excuse during those years,


because of the inclusion in this Sub-section of the words:
who is normally engaged in some gainful occupation.
The basis of excusal under the existing law is that the person is incapacitated from work, and no other ground is required. I think the Minister will see that this Sub-section worsens the arrangement, and I hope that he can agree to put it right in another place.

12.11 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): The best way of dealing with this matter would be to state the facts in regard to the Clause first, and then to deal with one or two of the criticisms which hon. Members have made as to its contents. Their criticisms arise from very considerable misconception. They are comparing the conditions in a compulsory scheme with those in a voluntary scheme such as this. In circumstances where there is no compulsion, as those who have been concerned with friendly society or trade union systems of insurance or pensions will know, a very different set of conditions is made. It is not, therefore, legitimate criticism to compare the provisions of a compulsory scheme with those of a voluntary scheme. You need only to look at the terms and conditions of many of the voluntary schemes to see that conditions have to be made which would not be necessary if compulsion were available. I submit, having regard to the voluntary nature of this scheme, that hon. Members will not find, elsewhere in matters such as the protracted illness of the contributor, such generous conditions.
We have had to devise a reasonable safeguard for the voluntary contributor in the event of protracted illness, always bearing in mind, as one must in connection with any pension schemes, the reasonable interest of the other contributors. I suggest that in every proposal which is made to relax this or the other condition, while one naturally feels disposed to do so, one must act fairly in the interests of the other contributors. One must see that everything is fair and square. Having made that general observation I would like to tell the House exactly what we have endeavoured to provide for contributors who have a protracted illness and who are engaged

in a gainful occupation. I emphasise the words "gainful occupation" because the object of this provision is to avoid hardship where people, through illness, are losing income. It is only in cases where they are engaged in gainful occupation that they lose income.
The hon. Gentleman must not overlook the provision in the scheme under which people who are not engaged in any occupation at all can come in if they desire and if they comply with the other conditions of the scheme. It may be that there will be many—I hope there will—who will come into the scheme though not engaged in any occupation at all. They are not suffering any loss of income during illness, and there is no necessity or justice in making provision so far as they are concerned. Provision in the case of contracted illness is only necessary for people who are gainfully employed and who otherwise would lose money on account of their illness. Title to widows' and orphans' pensions is secured by the actual payment of at least 104 contributions. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that allowances will be limited to the duration of illness beyond 13 weeks, but you are not in a position, as in a compulsory scheme, to adopt certain methods and regulations so far as shortening the period is concerned; and it is thought by my advisers and the actuaries and other officials who have been consulted that on the whole it is better to make provision for illnesses which last beyond 13 weeks. It is the same for everyone. If you put in a shorter period of time, unless there is a further financial contribution, whatever scheme you devise would have to operate equally amongst all contributors. I have not heard that challenged anywhere except here this morning.
Most insurance experts will agree that this provision, applying to people who are only gainfully employed, is right, and that it is best in the interests of the contributors, having regard to the section of the community concerned. They are small shopkeepers and others independent workers on their own account. Having regard to their particular needs, the 13 weeks would be the most beneficial and the best in the circumstances. When you have regard to the differences of the two schemes and the fact that you are not dealing with people who are under a


legal contract of employment, this is a fair and generous proposal for a voluntary scheme. I hope hon. Members will he satisfied with that explanation. I am sure they do not desire this Sub-section o be dropped, and I understand that they move its deletion merely in order to have the matter debated.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is always very dexterous when he speaks about these problems in the House, but, quite frankly, he has not met our case at all. He has received all the money he is to get from the Treasury and is not going to give way on any point which will mean the expenditure of more money than he is already allowed. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from this fact: The provisions we are talking about in respect of these voluntary contributory pensioners are not as generous as the provisions that were laid down for other contributory pensions. That is the case in a nutshell. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that it is so, and he has not met the point. He talked of being fair to the fund. First of all, contributors pay 104 contributions and lay the basis of their pension rights. The same thing applies to National Health Insurance. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the original contributory pensions scheme was interlocked with National Health Insurance, and now that he has set up a new central fund for this pensions scheme he is departing from the generous principles that were laid down in the original contributory pensions scheme. He knows that full well. Of course, he is right in saying that my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. Half a loaf is better than none, but a whole loaf is better than half.
The right hon. Gentleman talks of being fair to the fund. Let us see what happens in connection with National Health Insurance. We must use that by way of comparison. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He is a great authority. As a matter of fact the people who fashioned the National Health Insurance scheme were more broadminded and generous than this Tory Government. There is no argument about that. Let me put the case to see where it falls foul of the principles laid down in the National Health Insurance scheme,

which gave the qualification for the contributory pensions. A young fellow joins both the National Health Insurance and the contributory pensions schemes. He pays for two years. He falls ill and for 26 weeks gets a statutory benefit of 15s. If he falls ill at 20 years of age he can be on the funds at 7s.6d. a week, disablement benefit, for 45 years. The right hon. Gentleman does not shake his head this time. The first contributory pensions scheme was based on and interlocked with the principles of the National Health Insurance scheme.
Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the provision regarding trade union funds, and he tried to assume that trade union contributions were compulsory. He knows full well that friendly societies and trade unions are voluntary institutions. You cannot compel their members to do anything. You can compel the officials to do something on their behalf, I agree. Let me pass to one more consideration. We have to remember that, although this scheme covers some persons like those employed by the railways in excepted occupations, in the main the people coming into the scheme will be small shopkeepers, a few ministers of religion, musicians and the like. But really the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in one respect and he ought to know better. He is rather a wide-awake Minister. When there is any difficult job to be done on the Front Bench the Government generally appoint him to do it. He would have the House to believe that because a man is in business on his own account and he falls sick his income does not decline.

Sir K. Wood: He would be all right; he would be gainfully employed. This Clause only excepts people who have a private income and do not work.

Mr. Davies: I think the right hon. Gentleman wanted us to assume that the vast majority of the people who will come under this scheme will be small shopkeepers. That is clear.

Sir K. Wood: People on their own account.

Mr. Davies: Surely, for the sake of supporting his rotten argument the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the idea that in the main the provisions of this scheme will attract people who are


in businesses on their own account. I ought to know a little about this subject by this time. I say that when a man in business on his own account falls ill very often his income declines with the length of the period of his sickness. That is true. I do not want to dwell unduly on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman certainly is giving something when he gives us Sub-section (7) of the Clause.

Sir K. Wood: I would like the facts to be put on record because the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. All those people who are in business on their own account will come within the operations of Sub-section (7) and will not be excluded.

Mr. Davies: We shall, of course, have the regulations on this issue laid before Parliament and that will give us another opportunity of dealing with this problem if we care to do so. Although we are critical of this Sub-section we feel that in any case it is better than nothing, I strongly advise the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment to withdraw it, as they have now ventilated their grievance.

Mr. George Griffiths: I want to follow the Minister's remarks for a few moments. I have not yet got the point clear. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that this Clause puts the present voluntary contributor in a worse position than he is in to-day.

Sir K. Wood: It does not take in the existing voluntary contributor.

Mr. Griffiths: All right; I will say no more.

12.28 p.m.

Mr. Lathan: Before taking the action suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I would ask is it not a fact that voluntary contributors in future occupying a similar position to the voluntary contributors of to-day will be prejudiced by this provision? I would ask also whether this term "normally engaged in gainful occupation" will be held to apply to those who have retired from services like the railways or local government or similar services and who are in receipt of annuities?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the latter part of the question is, of course, that all

depends on the interpretation of "gainfully employed" People who are not dependent on an occupation for a livelihood and who have retired either on their own means or on some other provisions made for them, are not gainfully employed and would not in fact lose their pensions. So far as voluntary contributors are concerned, the Clause does not apply to existing contributors at all. I think it is a generous and fair scheme.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the Minister see that people who are normally gainfully employed, when they retire at the age of 60, come on to a lower income at a time when, between the ages of 60 and 65, they are more likely to be ill, and therefore not to be so well able to meet the contributions? No relief is afforded to these people, in such circumstances.

Sir K. Wood: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lathan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 17.—(Transitory provisions.)

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment that is in order is that in the name of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins).

12.3 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I beg to move, in page 18, line 32, after "have," to insert "not."
I have on the Paper a similar Amendment in line 34, and also a further Amendment, in page 19, line 1, after "contributors," to insert:
and have within the prescribed time elected in the prescribed manner that the principal Act and the Insurance Act shall no longer continue to have effect in relation to them.
These three Amendments all cover the verbal alterations necessary to meet one point. Should I be in order in speaking on the general situation?

Mr. Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Watkins: The purpose of these Amendments, as the Minister, of course, knows, is to change the method with regard to contracting out and contracting in. Under the provisions of the Bill, voluntary contributors will have to contract in, so to speak, in order to retain the position which they at present


occupy. It seems to us that it would be much simpler, far less troublesome to the approved societies, and in accordance with the ordinary normal way of dealing with a situation of this kind, to allow a voluntary contributor, if he desires that there shall be no change in his status under the insurance scheme, to continue without being required to sign any additional documents. The scheme laid down in the Bill will involve the approved societies in very considerable trouble and difficulty, and it may work in a way to the disadvantage of voluntarily insured persons. This point was raised during the Committee stage, when the Parliamentary Secretary intimated that he had had some consultations with representatives of the approved societies, and I gathered that he imagined that they were divided on the point. This morning there has been issued the ordinary weekly edition of the paper which speaks for the approved societies, the "National Insurance Gazette," and it seems from their leading article that they are in favour of the proposal of allowing existing voluntary contributors to retain their rights without any further formalities.
Our belief"—
says this journal, which is the only national journal dealing with the business of approved societies—
Our belief is that there is considerable feeling in approved society circles in favour of the Motion.
The Motion was a Motion moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson).
If nothing is done in the Commons to-day"—
that is to say, this morning—
we hope that interested approved societies will write to all such persons as can influence the Debate in the Lords. This option business is likely to be a thorough nuisance, and the two-card system a bigger one still.
There are 650,000 voluntarily insured persons, and many of them will require to continue under exactly the same conditions as at present; but they will be told that, if they want to continue as they are at the present time, they will have to notify, to sign a document, to complete a formality, in order that no change may be made in their condition. We feel that the normal and reasonable and proper method in a situation of that nature would be for the Minister to have

said to these people, "If you desire no change, no notification of any kind will be required of you; but if you desire to change from your existing insurance conditions to the new insurance conditions of this Bill, you must signify that fact in some recognised manner." I hope the Minister will see the force of this argument. To oblige the approved societies to correspond with every one of their members will involve an enormous amount of clerical work, and, of course, there is the possibility, in dealing with 650,000 people, that many of them, who really desire to continue as they are, will, because of something happening in their lives, some illness or some absentmindedness, omit to fill up the prescribed form, and then they will pass from their existing conditions to the inferior conditions that are provided by the present scheme. I do not know whether the Minister of Health wants that to happen. It is the old principle of contracting in and contracting out as applied to insurance. I hope the Minister will see his way to intimate that in another place the arrangement will be altered to conform with normal and reasonable practice.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. Simpson: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems extraordinary that the Minister should be so difficult and, indeed, adamant towards a change which obviously makes for simplicity. The people who are affected by this proposal are already established and included in the scheme which they elected to join under certain conditions, and obviously, unless they indicate a desire to change that relationship, they desire it to continue. In this respect, as in other aspects of the Bill, there seems to be almost a desire to interfere with past legislation, although there is no good reason for doing so. It seems to me that, in the case of changes such as are included in this new Measure, the obvious and sensible thing is that, if people desire to avail themselves of those changes, they should indicate that desire.
We hear many complaints about circumlocution in legislation and administration, but this seems to be a deliberate effort to achieve a change in the most difficult and roundabout way. It will involve very considerable cost, to say


nothing of the trouble and inconvenience, to the societies who will be called upon to act on behalf of their members in this entirely unnecesary way. My hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, has indicated the possibility that, through ignorance or indifference or mischance, people who have benefited under the old Act may very well be deprived of their benefits because they do not contract in. It is extremely difficult to understand the reasons behind the Minister's determination to insist on a change of this character, instead of leaving well alone and enabling people who are already covered by the Measure to retain their existing rights without being subject to the necessity of filling up further forms and contracting in. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom and desirability of making this small concession.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I desire to reinforce the plea that has been made for a reconsideration of this matter. Members who, like myself, live in or near their constituencies, where people can get at them day by day and come to see them with regard to various points, will have been struck by the fact that, when it is a question of filling in forms of any kind, the great majority of people have not the remotest idea of what the thing means. That operates in a manner that is terribly distressing in connection with widows' pensions. A large number of widows are to-day debarred from receiving pensions because of the neglect of their husbands, if it can be called neglect, or their inability to understand what they had to do when they might have become insured voluntary contributors, and the amount of suffering that is caused in this way must have struck every Member of the House.
The same thing will occur in connection with this scheme. Probably tens of thousands of people who are voluntarily insured to-day will know nothing about it. However much it is advertised, however much it is posted up in the post offices, Employment Exchanges, and other public places, as happens in regard to many other matters, they will not see it. They never read these things; many of them never read anything; and they do not become acquainted with anything unless you actually go to them and explain

exactly what they have to do. If their organisation or friendly society sends them an intimation, it is generally a long one, typewritten or printed, and they glance at it but do not understand it.
What can be the purpose of this new arrangement? There can only be one purpose that I can see, and that is that the Ministry are hoping that these people will not see and understand what they have to do under the new arrangement, and, as a consequence of their not seeing and understanding it, will be transferred from a system under which they get certain benefits to-day to a system under which they will get less benefits than they get now. One does not like to be so ungenerous as to imagine that the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary, or, indeed, anyone, would desire to see that happen, but what other view is it possible to take? I cannot see any other view that can possibly be taken as to the purpose of this arrangement. I hope that the Minister will not make it plain to the House and to the world that that is the purpose, but will say that on reflection he will at any rate agree to this Amendment. He represents a constituency where people can get at him, or at any rate could get at him when he was in a less important position than he occupies to-day, and when he was accessible to everyone—

Sir K. Wood: I am more accessible now.

Mr. McEntee: I am very glad indeed to hear it. That being so, I am sure he will agree with me that, in all the interviews he has had with his constituents, his experience has been the same as mine, and therefore I hope he will accept the Amendment and free these people from a duty which many of them will not perform, not because they do not desire to do it, but because they do not understand it.

12.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), because he has really provided the very best argument that could possibly be required in favour of the proposals as they stand in the Bill, and against the Amendment. In our view, the proposals of the new scheme are more favourable to the existing voluntary contributor than


the present system, and we are therefore anxious that the maximum number of people in the country should be able to take advantage of the new scheme. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow says that his experience—and he has much more experience of this matter than I have—is that people do not really trouble to learn what the advantages of a new scheme are. Therefore, they are very apt indeed to remain under an existing system. He recalled the number of people who would be enjoying widows' pensions to-day if their husbands had realised in time what they had to do. That is precisely why we have included these provisions in the Bill. Think of the position of an existing voluntary contributor, supposing the Amendment were accepted. If he took no action at all he would be bound to remain under the existing system. He would have forfeited his opportunity to come under the new scheme. In five or six years' time he might find that his circumstances had so changed that he wanted to drop one form of insurance or the other. But there would be no means of doing it. The man who to-day is not sure of what his position is going to be in the future, provided he sits tight and does nothing, is automatically to be given an option at any time in the future to decide, as his circumstances change, which form of insurance is most suitable to those changed circumstances.
It is precisely because we believe in the hon. Members' arguments, and because very large numbers of people will not to-day be able to decide finally which is the best system for them, that we think they ought to be given a continuing option, which they have not got to-day but will have under the Bill, of changing over at some future date from one to the other or of dropping one or the other. I understand the position of the hon. Members for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) and Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson). They represent societies whose members may be particularly affected, and therefore the attitude that they are taking up is a quite reasonable and understandable one. My right hon. Friend proposes, when we get to the Third Reading, to give some fairly full information about the actual procedure that we contemplate and the way in which we propose to help societies to obtain the views of their members. I think hon. Members will

find that those measures will be satisfactory and will go far to remove many of the difficulties which they anticipate.

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary has not given an answer which will satisfy us on this very important point. This refers to people who are ordinary voluntary contributors. The first thing the right hon. Gentleman must understand is that some of us have never seen any reason at all why there should be any voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance scheme. The right hon. Gentleman looks aghast at my saying that. How does it come about that a shop assistant, because he is a non-manual worker, whose income exceeds £250 is cleared out of the compulsory scheme altogether while a manual worker remains compulsorily insured even if his income goes up to £300 or £400 a year. There is an unfairness there against the person who is a voluntary contributor at present. There is going to be another unfairness thrown upon him, namely, that the Government are going to induce him to drop his National Health Insurance, cut his connection with his approved society and hand over his pension business to the State. I know what they are after. They want to reduce as far as they can payments from the Treasury in respect of National Health Insurance benefits to voluntary contributors in order to gain for pension purposes what they have lost on health insurance. What they gain on the swings they are going to lose on the roundabouts, and vice versa. The right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce a two-card system instead of one. There are 750,000 we are told. These people will be told that in future they will have two cards. one for contributions for this new scheme and one for health insurance, and because they are not getting medical benefit under National Health Insurance as voluntary contributors—the doctors of course have seen to that already; they are a formidable problem in this business—

Sir K. Wood: Are you suspicious of them, too?

Mr. Davies: Why should I not be? The right hon. Gentleman is so suspicious of them that he is setting up a tribunal to inquire into their case. Having provided these voluntary contributors with two


cards, the Government look to the ordinary human element in a man to say to himself, "Why should I bother to pay the larger contribution for health insurance? I will only pay the smaller pensions contribution," and he loses all connection with health insurance. Although human beings are bent on making provision for their declining days, I know of very sad cases of persons who die long before the pension age when they ought to have been receiving some benefit from these funds, and who, through neglect, have left the National Health Insurance scheme and have left a good deal of money that they had already paid into the fund which ought to have been available for them later on. All this is a game to induce them to leave National Health Insurance. It is all arranged accordingly. I am not so sure—I speak with a little diffidence on this point—whether these people will not be induced to drop both. That is part of the game too, because the Bill, while it is indeed a very important Measure in offering a generous pension scheme, is deficient in this respect, that all the inducements are against these people continuing for pensions at all. Of course the approved societies will be in a quandary.
What happens now? A non-manual worker whose salary exceeds the limit receives a notification from his approved society that he is entitled to become a voluntary contributor. He takes no notice. He is written to a second and a third time and he still takes no notice. In the end he dies suddenly leaving a widow and three or four children. Then, of course, it dawns on the whole family what has happened. That is exactly what is going to happen in connection with this business, and I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not literally conniving at the idea, because he knows that people are so neglectful, in order to prevent them from securing benefits from these funds. I hope that greater wisdom will prevail some day on the Front Bench opposite than we have now. We welcome the Bill—there is no doubt in my view that there is a growing desire in the country to attain security in old age—but I ask my hon. Friends to press this Amendment to a Division.

12.55 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I am very sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the Amendment. It means that the present voluntary contributor, who is not only a voluntary contributor for pensions but for sickness benefit as well, would not have to contract out of his sickness benefit and the present pension scheme.
I am a voluntary contributor. I was a compulsory contributor for some 22 years until I got a fresh job—that is my present job. There are people who have been compulsory members who have a better "screw" than I have and are still in the scheme. After a certain time I got a notification from my society that I could be a voluntary contributor, but I should have to pay 1s. 5d.per week, which gave me all the benefits of the present Act with the exception of medical benefit. As it happens, that did not affect me, because I am in a weekly scheme, and have been for 30 years. The doctor said, "George, you have paid as far as your family is concerned for a quarter of a century and you can go on now until you peg out." So that it did not affect me, but it would affect those who had not got what we call a weekly doctor.
There are thousands who are paying their is. 5d. a week and the possibility is that, if they do not sign to say they want to stay in, they will automatically contract out and they will not have the monetary benefits that they are entitled to now. I prophesy that there will be thousands who will omit to sign this. If a voluntary contributor is turned 6o he will pay the first half-year's contribution. He does not pay his second half-year's contribution. He waits till his society sends him an arrears card with 12 stamps, making 38 instead of 50, which means that he is paying 54s. 5d. per year and, if he falls sick between 60 and 65, he will draw 15s. a week monetary benefit. If I am out of this scheme and I pay 52 elevenpences, which amounts to 47s. 8d., or only 6s.9d. a year less, I run out of my monetary benefit altogether. Am I going to do that for the sake of 6s.9d. for five years from 60 to 65? I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has told me personally that this will be to my benefit, but I have since sat down and thought


it out, and I say to him that it will not. Suppose I lose this gainful occupation—and I am putting a personal case which is applicable to hundreds of thousands of other people—and I fall sick, I shall not get the sickness benefit of 15s., but a paltry 6s.9d. That will mean something to me and my wife if I fall sick.
I ask the Minister, having put this personal point, to reconsider the question and to state that he will accept the Amendment, so that insured persons may Mill remain in their present society without any contracting of any kind. Let them go on as they are at present, so that they may be doubly sure. I am afraid that thousands of our people will automatically lose the monetary benefits. This is an amusing point, but it is possible—I do not say that it will occur in my case—that a man who has turned 60 may marry a young wife. Members on the opposite side of the House who are bachelors have been telling us about the decline of the birth rate, and on that occasion one of us shouted across and asked them whether practice was not far better than theory. Suppose a man of 60 with a young wife becomes a father, the maternity benefit will have gone as far as they are concerned. I know that the Minister has never thought about that position, and I hope that he will say that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: With the leave of the House, I would say to the hon. Member, who has been in communication with me that I thought we had succeeded in persuading him that, in his own particular case, it was probably of advantage to him to continue to contribute to both health insurance and pensions. In his speech he used the expression "automatically go out," and, I think, possibly that is the basis of the misunderstanding of the position. A man who comes under the new scheme by virtue of not having asked his approved society to allow him to remain under the existing scheme does not automatically go out of insurance, but remains insured as a voluntary contributor for health and for pensions, and it is only subsequently, if he decides that he wants to contract out, that he will go out. The ordinary voluntary contributor who does not give any answer at all to his approved society within the period of time will remain insured for health and for pensions.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Without signing anything at all?

Mr. Hudson: Yes. That need not cause the hon. Member any worry.

Mr. G. Hardie: The hon. Gentleman has stated that the insuring body or society does not require to give notice individually to each Member, but that automatically these people, without signing, will keep on the list.

Mr. Hudson: No, each approved society will have to ask in a circular to its members, "Do you wish to remain in the existing scheme, or do you wish to join the new scheme?" If they do not make any reply, they will come under the new scheme, but they will continue to remain insured both for health and for pensions.

Mr. E. J. Williams: And get inferior benefit.

Mr. McEntee: Do they remain under the old scheme as if a circular had never been sent to them?

Mr. Hudson: They will continue to remain insured for health and pensions purposes on separate cards. At any future date, if they so desire, they can drop one or the other, but until they so desire, they will remain insured for both purposes on separate cards.

Mr. G. Griffiths: If they continue in both schemes, which is rid. under one scheme and is. 5d. under the other, will they have to pay is. 5d. and 11d?

Mr. Hudson: No, they will have to pay exactly what they are paying now. The hon. Member will continue to pay 1s. 5d.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I shall pay 6d. in one and rid. in the other.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. Lathan: After the speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, I think that I am entitled to say that we have had an indication in the discussion of the policy and methods adopted by the Minister in regard to these proposals. Questions have been put to them as to the position of those who will be affected by the changes which we are criticising. The Parliamentary Secretary has implied that the hundreds of thousands of people who will be affected by these proposals, those whose points of view are indicated by specialists responsible for the leading article in the


journal which has been quoted this morning, are not adequate judges of their own position, and do not know whether, in fact, the conditions which will apply under the proposed new legislation will be better than those which they now enjoy, and are not competent to decide for themselves whether the new conditions are beneficial or whether they are not. All we have asked the Minister to do, as we have begged and prayed of him elsewhere as well as here, is to allow those who are under the existing conditions to remain undisturbed, but for some penal purpose, it seems to us, the Minister is determined to apply in this legislation the contracting-in arrangements that have been applied in other legislation, obviously for penal purposes. I hope he will appreciate that his object in this matter has been sufficiently revealed, and that the arguments advanced this morning will induce him seriously to reconsider the position. He has favoured us to-day, as he has on other occasions, with soft words and a smiling countenance, and his assistant is following him in that worthy course. But there is substance in the request which has been put forward, and I seriously urge upon him the desirability of reconsidering the position.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Hardie: If the circular is to make no difference, why send it out? Will not the Minister answer the question? The House has been very friendly this morning in regard to this very serious and intricate business of insurance. The bulk of hon. Members on this side of the House have had some experience of insurance and are up against this kind of problem almost every week. Is it not in order to demand that the Minister should give a direct reply to a direct answer?

Sir K. Wood: I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, I will explain in detail, and more consecutively than is possible on a single point like this, the exact procedure that we propose as far as the approved societies are concerned. It will be more desirable that I should describe the whole processes of this matter. We have on many occasions, when no doubt the hon. Gentleman had not the opportunity of being present,

both on the Second Reading and in Committee, explained the reasons for this provision. It is not a matter such as he apprehends.

Mr. E. J. Williams: That is quite a separate point.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman says that on the Third Reading lie will describe the administration to be employed, but can he give us any hope that he will alter his attitude towards the problems we have raised? The approved society will send to a voluntary contributor to say that he has now the option of contracting out of his health insurance and going into this new scheme. Does the right hon. Gentleman support what the Parliamentary Secretary said just now that, if the contributor does not reply to that circular at all or does not take any notice of it, he will still remain a voluntary contributor for both purposes? We understood on the Second Reading that if he did not offer any response to the circular he would automatically fall out of health insurance and come into this scheme.

1.12 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I think that I had better say a few words upon this matter. Although the House has heard one series of suggestions this morning against the proposals in the Bill, about a fortnight ago I received a deputation from the National Conference of Friendly Societies who supported the proposals of the Bill. It is true that I elicited from the deputation that there were Members present who took the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but the spokesmen on behalf of the National Conference of Friendly Societies considered that the terms of the Government Bill were right as far as the insured person was concerned. I need hardly assure the House that there is no ulterior motive whatever in these proposals. The whole idea is to do what is fair for the insured person having regard to the coming into operation of this scheme. The simple question, in as much as pensions and health insurance are now going to be interlocked, is, What shall we do as far as the existing voluntary contributor is concerned. We propose that his rights shall not be affected, except to this extent. If he elects, he can remain as he is at present, with health insurance and pensions insurance


still interlocking, but he is then in the unfortunate position, that once he has made his election there is no going back.
I was very much impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee)—I know the difficulties of which he complained as well as anybody—these people will, unless you make them definitely elect, through carelessness, to which we are all subjected, remain in their present position, and that will deprive them in the future of ever being able to elect either for health insurance or for pensions. Therefore, the proposition is simply this, that unless they contract-in, and by that means cast their die for ever, they will be deemed to come under the new scheme. That is a benefit to them inasmuch as they will then be deemed to be under two contracts, one for health and another for pensions, and as their circumstances change, or as they so desire, they can determine in the future for themselves whether they will go on with health insurance or not. That puts them into the favourable position of deciding for themselves as far as the future is concerned.
I have an additional reason for standing by this arrangement, because a very considerable number of people think that the present scheme offers better benefits to them than the old one. They will be able to come to their own conclusion about it. I can assure hon. Members opposite that as far as contributions are concerned existing contributors if they do

come under the two contracts provided by the new scheme will pay no more than their old contributions but will come under terms which will be more favourable. They will be able to decide for themselves in the future whether they will continue under both contracts or under one.

If we put it the other way round and said: "If you do not elect, you shall remain exactly as you are," we are afraid that through natural disinclination to do anything or through disinclination to read circulars they will be finally committed to remain insured both for National Health Insurance and pension and never be able to change in the future. Under the Bill we give them the opportunity of deciding between the two contracts at any time they like. We do not want them to commit themselves to the old scheme unless they definitely desire to do so. That is really the reason for the Government's proposal. There is no ulterior motive of any kind. There are four or five approved societies which will be adversely affected by this scheme. Their postion has been very ably advocated in Committee and in the House, and I have assured them that in connection with any losses which they may suffer arising out of their administration I will endeavour to deal with them as far as I can. I have kept before me simply the interests of the insured persons.

Question put, "That the word 'not' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 144.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[1.19 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, W.


Adamson, W. M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McEntee, V. La T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Batey, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacLaren, A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mander, G. le M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Groves, T. E.
Messer, F.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, F.


Chater, D.
Hardie, G. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cove, W. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parkinson, J. A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Potts, J.


Dobbie, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.


Foot, D. M.
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Gardner, B. W.
Leslie, J. R.
Rothschild, J. A. de


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Logan, D. G.
Rowson, G.




Seely, Sir H. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
White, H. Graham


Shinwell, E.
Thorne, W.
Whiteley, W.


Short, A.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Simpson, F. B.
Tinker, J. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Walker, J.



Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watkins, F. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sorensen, R. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mr. Charleton add Mr. Mathers.


Stephen, C.
Westwood, J.





NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Hannah, I. C.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Blair, Sir R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Savery, Sir Servington


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hunter, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Leckie, J. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Spens, W. P.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lindsay, K. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cox, H. B. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crooke, J. S.
McKie, J. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Maitland, A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, G. C.


Denville, Alfred
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Donner, P. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duggan, H. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fildes, Sir H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wise, A. R.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Peat, C. U.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grant-Ferris, R.
Penny, Sir G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.



Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Pilkington, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Power, Sir J. C.
Sir James Blindell and Commander Southby.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn." put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Very few words are required from me in connection with the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) was to have undertaken this task, but he has another engagement. In spite of some criticism that we have levelled against certain provisions in the Bill we regard it as a useful Measure. I think those who are interested in our social security services will agree

with that statement. The Bill seeks to meet the legitimate demand made by people in business on their own account who have a very small income and who say that they are at a disadvantage compared with those who are employed for wages, and who are better off than they are. In so far as the Bill does that it meets a very urgent demand. I wish, however, that the right hon. Gentleman while he was dealing with pensions would have looked into the very distressing problem under our present pension scheme of the man of 65 whose wife has not reached that age. We are all well aware


of these distressing cases, and regret that they are not dealt with in the Bill. As to the method of dealing with the voluntary contributor in an approved society, even those who are actually administering these schemes have come to the conclusion, probably wrongly, that when an approved society sends out a circular to the voluntary contributor, unless he replies, he automatically drops his national health business and goes into the central pension scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has cleared up that point to some extent, but has not removed the fear that if the contributor does not reply the Department sends him two cards in the hope that he will ultimately drop his national insurance.
The Bill is valuable because it is the first time an attempt has been made to establish a central State pension scheme entirely unconnected with any other scheme. In that connection I can foresee a time—I am not talking about any particular party or any particular Government—when we shall find bigger pension schemes extended on the basis of this small Measure. I wish the Measure were more generous and that more money were spent on our social services than on rearmament. That, of course, does not appeal to the present Government. We shall not be foolish enough to divide against the Bill, and, indeed, I only rose to say that we wish it had been a better and more comprehensive Measure. Some day there will be a Government in power with much more humane instincts than the present, a Government which will do the right thing towards the people of this country in the matter of pensions.
There is one thing that can be said in favour of our country. While we have fallen back in many respects in comparison with some foreign countries in respect of industrial legislation, we are indeed well to the front with our social security schemes. In the letters I get from the United States I am constantly asked what we are doing in this country. When I was in America in 1927 they laughed with sheer contempt when I talked about unemployment and health insurance schemes in this country. In spite of my political views, I want our country to lead the way. in such schemes, and while we regret that this Bill does not go far enough, at the same time it is another brick in a building which will

give more security to our people in old age.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: In his Second Reading speech the Minister recommended the Bill on the ground that it was one more Parliamentary Measure of security and justice, and suggested that it would play a considerable part in the social services of this country, which were second to none. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that, like every other Bill which deals with social insurance schemes on the instalment plan, the Bill, while filling some gaps and deficiencies, will inevitably create other marginal and borderline cases where fresh anomalies will appear. In spite of the development of our social services it has been my experience that a considerable proportion of our correspondence is taken up in dealing with difficulties which arise under the system which exists to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has played a considerable part in the development of our social services, not only in connection with the present legislation but in other Measures which have been introduced in recent years.
I was hoping that in the present Bill he would look still further afield and review the whole situation of our social services, especially as regards pensions and superannuation. The age structure of the population of this country changes rapidly, and one result is that there is accumulating steadily an increase in those of older age, who will have to be provided for by a decreasing number of actual workers. That is a matter which, I hope, is receiving careful attention. If we have trade fluctuations in the future a national superannuation scheme will do away with many anomalies, and is, therefore, not only desirable for its own sake but because it would be a very substantial buffer in economic difficulties of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman has played an important part in the development of our social services. I hope he will render one more service and review the whole field and bring forward a Measure which is comprehensive. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that the Americans laughed at him when he referred to National Health Insurance. I refer to that because I hope some one is keeping an eye on what is going on in America. They are attempting in one


fell swoop to do what we are doing by stages. They are attempting something which is without parallel in the history of bookkeeping, and by the time they are through we may have something to learn from them. I hope the Minister of Health has an observer in America taking stock of what is going on.
There is one other small point. I hope the Minister will make every conceivable effort to make the provisions of the Bill known. I have noticed that whenever anything is proposed for the benefit of some section of the community, numbers of people fail, for one reason or another, to make their claim, and then come to their Member of Parliament or the Minister to try to get the situation rectified. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will call in aid the B.B.C. or some other agency to see that the provisions of the Bill are known. I cordially welcome the Bill, although it is not an entirely unqualified reception. I had hoped that in the Committee stage some of the defects in the Bill would have been rectified, notably the discrimination in the income limit between men and women, so that we might have had a Bill to which we could have given an absolutely unqualified reception. We are not in that happy position, I regret it, but, at the same time, I cordially support the Bill.

1.40 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: With other hon. Members, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the passage of the Bill. I am sure he and we are equally glad that it has got through the Committee stage and its other stages so quickly and will rejoice when it becames law. At the same time I regret more than I can say that there is still the great flaw in the Bill which was in it when it came before us on Second Reading—I refer to the inequality between men and women. It is particularly regrettable that we should have this wholly new differentiation between men and women in this year and that it should have been introduced by the present Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary gave reasons for this discrimination on the Second Reading and also in the Committee; all of which were wholly unconvincing. The Minister based his argument chiefly on the fact that women as a rule have fewer dependants than men.

That has been proved, particularly among those women who will be affected by the Bill, often not to be the case, and, as I said on the Second Reading, we have never yet based our salaries or wages on the question of dependants and, therefore, to start that argument on this Bill is wholly irrelevant. The Parliamentary Secretary in Committee said the reason why there was this discrimination was that women could get insurance outside the national scheme, but the hon. Member omitted to say that it was only a few friendly societies which, in actual practice, give these benefits, and even if a woman enters these friendly societies at the age of 25 she has to pay three times as much as she would under the nation scheme, and at a later age she pays four to six times as much.
Yesterday the Prime Minister in a very powerful and beautiful speech told us something of what democracy stood for and of the difficulties of democracy. He said:
Under a democracy, every individual in some degree or another has to do his own thinking, and on whether he thinks rightly or wrongly, the whole success or failure of that democracy will rest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1937; col. 1185, Vol. 323.]
I suggest that you will never have right thinking in the community until you have the maximum of equality of opportunity between one individual and another, and between men and women. Thinking that is founded on bitterness can never be right thinking, and if you introduce these inequalities and injustices between men and women you inevitably create bitterness which must always weaken democracy. To-day, from all parts of the Empire we have our kinsmen, guests in this country, and there is not one who would not readily acknowledge the great services which have been rendered by women in the building up of the Empire. No little part of the strength of the Empire is due to the courage and endurance of wives of the settlers who went out and helped to found the Empire in various parts of the world. The services which women have rendered have been frequently acknowledged by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government, and it is a tragedy, therefore, that when the Government are bringing in a Measure as fine, and of as great value as the present one, they should have introduced a wholly new inequality between men and women.


It is all the more regrettable because it will affect to a large extent the most deserving class of women. It will affect a large number of women who, because of the War, have had to support themselves and to support relatives for whom otherwise perhaps their brothers and fathers would have been able to make more ample provision.
It is very regrettable that these women are to be excluded from the benefits of this Bill. I will give as an illustration the case of a woman who is a widow and carries on a farm left to her by her husband. Perhaps in the heyday of youth or in middle age she may be earning more than the £250 limit, but as old age comes upon her it becomes increasingly difficult, and she falls below the level of £250, but she has been debarred from entering this scheme. We are very proud that now there is a longer expectation of life. We are very proud that this Bill will give a happier and more prosperous old age to a very large number of people to whom old age has always been something to be faced with fear and dread. I regret more than I can say that so many women who most deserve the benefits of this Bill are—so unjustly —left out of the scheme, and that such a magnificent Bill contains such a very grave flaw.

1.47 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I wish to join with other hon. Members in thanking the Minister and the Government for this magnificent Bill. The inclusion of black-coated workers in an insurance scheme is very good, and I heartily support it; but a great many of my lady constituents are very sorry to see the different limits placed on the incomes of women and men in this Bill, and they very much object to it. I raised this question in the Second Reading Debate, and the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary gave a most courteous explanation, for which I thank them very much. I circulated that explanation to the associations concerned with my lady constituents; but, although they very much appreciated the consideration which had been given to their views, they did not think the Government had given entire satisfaction. They think it a pity that the Government have overlooked the fact that there is a very large number of women to-day who have practically the same responsibilities as men; for in-

stance, unmarried women supporting old parents, married women supporting incapacitated husbands and children, and widows of uninsured men. The times are changed, and more and more women are going out into the world on their own. Marriage is not, as it was, the only career.
From the more practical point of view, we can look at the matter in this way. Women now have votes. In my constituency there is a very large number of educated women who are following their own careers, and I am afraid that the differentiation between the sexes in this Bill, which they consider to be unjustifiable, will make a considerable difference in the votes. It does not matter very much to me, but in my constituency the voters have two votes, one for the University and one in their local constituencies, and in the local constituencies it will make a good deal of difference. While thanking the Minister very much for what he has done and for his great courtesy, I hope that in the future there will be some way of rectifying this differentiation. I doubt whether it is a matter which could be dealt with in another place, because it is concerned with finance, but I hope that at some subsequent date it will be dealt with in some new Measure which will operate more fairly and favourably to women.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I am sorry I cannot join in the general chorus of praise of the Minister for this Bill. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) referred to the Bill as a magnificent one, but it is nothing of the sort. There are some very good provisions in it, which we on this side welcome, but the Minister has taken the opportunity offered him by this Bill, which is ostensibly a Bill to extend insurance provisions, to incorporate penalising, unfair and totally unnecessary provisions. That being so, I cannot find it in my heart to call it a magnificent Bill. I have heard the Bill referred to as the black-coated workers charter; it is certainly not a Magna Carta, but a very minor charter.Every organisation of black-coated workers is full of criticism of what the Bill does, and of what it does not do but ought to do.
During the discussions on the Report stage, the Minister and the Parliamentary


Secretary referred to the provisions of the new insurance scheme as being an improvement on the old one. That is not true. In many respects the scheme in the present Bill is inferior. For instance, there is the proposal to compel sick people to bear the burden of the first 13 weeks' sickness. There is the arrangement whereby concessions are granted to elderly contributors. At the present time, the concession in the case of a man is an exemption from payment of two-and-a-half years' pensions contributions during the previous five years and in the case of a woman of five years' contributions during the previous ten years. Both those concessions are abolished. Under the present scheme, 45 stamps a year keep a man in benefit, but under the Bill 50 stamps are required. The position is worse. In other respects also the scheme proposed in the Bill is inferior to the existing scheme.
Moreover, hon. Members on these benches very strongly criticise the Bill because of the manner in which it treats men and women in excepted employment. We raised this matter on the Committee stage without success, but still I feel that our case is a sound one and that we have not been treated fairly by the Minister. This Bill will deprive new entrants into railway salaried service, local government salaried service and the Civil Service of the right to become voluntary contributors to health insurance and old age pensions. The present arrangement is that a young man going into the railway service serves a period of probation; he is then placed on the establishment and goes into the superannuation scheme; and under the present law such a young man has the right to contract-in as a voluntary contributor for all benefits. That right is taken away from him by the provisions of this Bill.
Moreover, this Bill will deprive persons now in excepted employment who are compulsorily insured for widows' and orphans' pensions of the chance of taking out full insurance on passing the income limit of £250 a year. Those are very real grievances. In his speech in the Second Reading Debate, the Minister referred to the scheme as bringing an advantage to 2,000,000 people. The people of whom I am speaking number 750,000. Therefore, in a scheme which

is put before the country and before the House as being one to enlarge the insurance scheme, proposals are made to rob 750,000 people of advantages and privileges which they have at the present time.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Watkins: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. It does not take those advantages away from those who are at present in insurance, but the successors to those people will not be able to get the advantages enjoyed by the present holders of the jobs. The right of people in excepted employment to become national health and pensions contributors. was first given in 1911 by a Liberal Government; it was extended in 1925 by a Tory Government; it was further extended by the Labour Government in 1929; and it was consolidated in an Act of the National Government in 1936. After this principle has been applied to employés in excepted employment for 26 years, the Minister of Health, in a scheme that is meant to be of advantage to the community, denies these people insurance rights which they have had for the whole of that period. That is a blot on what otherwise would be a very good scheme. From the discussions which have taken place, I understand that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are averse to providing pensions benefits to people who are already in some superannuation scheme which will provide pensions for then in old age; but whatever may be the superannuation schemes in which they are, they pay for themselves.
In the case of the civil servants, it may be regarded as a kind of deferred pay, and in the case of the railway workers, money contributions are deducted from their pay envelope week by week or month by month. The man or woman who makes provision for his or her old age other than in a statutory fund is allowed to become a voluntary contributor, but if he or she is in employment where superannuation arrangements are made, are a condition of that employment and are statutory funds, the provisions of this Bill deny that right. We put our case, which we consider to be an unanswerable one, to the Minister, but he refused it. In the first place, a deputation of representatives of these organisations was received by the Minister and


I believe also by the Parliamentary Secretary, but they refused. No argument that could be employed moved the Minister. We raised the matter, I think very moderately and courteously, on the Committee stage, and we put our case before the right hon. Gentleman as plainly as we could, but again he refused it.
It has been said that it is a matter of expense, but to that my reply is that there are certain citizens' rights. The railway man will pay his share of national revenue and will be compelled through taxation to contribute to an insurance scheme which he is denied the opportunity of entering. That seems to me to be completely unfair. I do not know whether it is too late now to ask for reconsideration of this matter, but I would like the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to consider it again. I ask them to consider whether the insurance status now possessed by people in excepted employments should not be continued so that they may be able to augment their pensions—which may be very meagre in some cases—by their own money under the National Insurance scheme. I mentioned in a previous discussion the deplorable case of postmen whose wages are never very high, and do not, I suppose, range much over £3 per week. They are debarred by this so-called "munificent" Bill from improving their 15s. a week or 20s. a week pensions when they reach the age of 55. This scheme rules them out, and that seems a genuine hardship. I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether, even now, it would not be possible to make a change which would give to people in excepted employments in the future the same measure of benefit as they have at present.
With regard to the differentiation between men and women, that seems to have been gratuitously inserted in the Bill. It need not have been put into the Bill at all. The number of additional cases that would be brought in by making the arrangement the same as between men and women would involve only a small outlay. We have approached the Minister again and again on this subject, but it seems to me that the right lion. Gentleman has lost the capacity for saying "Yes." I do not know whether, when he was a boy, he attended Band of Hope meetings as I did. If so I

think he may have over-learned one of the lessons then taught to him.

Sir Henry Fildes: To "dare to be a Daniel"?

Mr. Watkins: No, there was an even more popular hymn than that. It was "Have courage my boy to say 'No'." I think that philosophically, religiously and psychologically that is all wrong. I think "No" is a wretched word, and the people who say "Yes" are more popular in all circles of society. I urge the Minister, therefore, to try to say "Yes" in this case, and to allow the advantages and benefits which have hitherto attached to people in excepted employments to be continued.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Leckie: I join in congratulating the Minister on the successful way in which he has piloted this Measure through the House, and on the fact that it has now reached its final stage. I am sure we all agree that, as far as it goes, it is an excellent Measure. Some of us think it might have gone a little further and covered many of the cases which have been left outside its scope. It redresses a good many anomalies, and I am sure we all rejoice at that fact, but it leaves others untouched. I hope the Minister himself will agree that another Measure, following up the present Bill, will be very welcome and very necessary later on. I have had a great many complaints from constituents of mine who are not, unfortunately, included in the provisions of the Bill. There is the small shopkeeper class.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that on the Third Reading he cannot discuss provisions which are not in the Bill, and I understand that small shopkeepers are not included.

Mr. Leckie: I apologise. Many of the proposals made in Committee were turned down on the ground that this was an insurance Measure, but I think there are many of its provisions which would not stand actuarial consideration, and I feel that had the Minister been a little more generous in connection with these matters, it would have helped the Bill considerably. I welcome the Bill as a step towards a larger Measure in the future. We all want a comprehensive


Measure covering pensions, and I hope that the Minister will remain in his present office long enough to have the honour as he has the ability, to introduce such a Measure and get it through the House. We know what he did as Postmaster-General in cutting away much of the red tape which had collected around the administration of that Department. I am sure that if he remains in his present office a little longer he will be able to use his tomahawk with good effect there also, and that he will do something even larger and better than he has done in this Bill. If he does, he can rely upon the warm support of hon. Members not only on this side but in all parts of the House.

2.8 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I, also, join in congratulating the Minister upon the successful passage of the Bill so far, but those who have followed the progress of the Bill through all its stages regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to meet the two substantial criticisms which have been offered. One has already been referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). That is the differentiation between men and women. Had the right hon. Gentleman been able to meet the demand that men and women should be treated equally under the Bill, he would have received overwhelming public support for that line of action. It is also sincerely to be regretted that he has not met the well-reasoned, moderately put and persuasively argued case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) and other hon. Members on this side in regard to excepted employments. I think that those hon. Members in Committee presented arguments which proved conclusively the reasonableness of their case. This is one more example of how a Minister's better instincts may be prevented from getting full play because of the pernicious method of passing a Money Resolution which restricts subsequent legislation. I think if the Minister had been free to consider the case presented to him in Committee he would have been disposed to accede to my hon. Friend's request. I hope that the Committee which is to deal with this matter of procedure will expedite its recommendations, because the present method of

legislation does not get the best results and Members of the House are not able to make their proper contributions in the framing of these Measures.
I believe I am the only Member who got something out of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill. During the Second Reading Debate I drew his attention to the cases of hardship which would result from fixing the limit of the age of entry at 55. I asked him to give a concession to a class of people who have, while in employment, contributed to the compulsory scheme, and who will now lose the value of those contributions. The State is indebted to those men who have been paying into the compulsory scheme for 10 or 15 or 20 years while they were at work. After a year or two of unemployment, a man may say to himself, "I will not remain idle. I will start some sort of business myself." As a result now, men in that position if they are over 55 cannot come under this scheme. They are shut out if they are even six months over the age limit, and they have completely lost the value of their contribution to the compulsory scheme. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give those men the concession for which I asked.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I now gather that the hon. Member is discussing something which is not in the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: I am discussing the age limit and pointing out how this Measure, like all other Measures which deal with such questions in a piecemeal fashion, is going to create anomalies. I am glad to say that the Minister was able to give some concession and in a case where a man is over 55 and his wife is not over that age, she will be enabled to come within the scheme. I hope that wide publicity will be given to that fact because I have been surprised at the volume of correspondence which I have received upon this matter and the large number of cases in which this concession will be of material benefit.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) hardly showed a true sense of proportion in describing this Measure as "munificent." The most that one can say is that it adds one more brick to the great edifice of social insurance, but it is time that we reviewed this


question as a whole. All sorts of anomalies exist and the time has come for building up one comprehensive insurance scheme. What is the Measure which has been described as "munificent"? We are bringing within the scheme men who have incomes of £400 a year, because they feel that their livelihood is so insecur e. An income of £8 a week is regarded as a prettty good income in this country, and yet people in receipt of that income are scrambling over each other to make sure that they will get a pension of l0s. a week. I hope the House does not miss the significance of that fact. With rationalisation and mechanisation encroaching upon every industry, there is a growing sense of insecurity, which is most poignant in relation to the fear of poverty in old age. There is a great problem which this Measure does not touch fundamentally but deals with only in a very small way, and I hope that shortly steps will be taken towards providing a comprehensive pension system.
I have had experience of trying to create a pensions scheme within the limits of an industry, and I know that the difficulties are immense. But there is a clamant desire to-day for such schemes. We never have a conference in the miners' organisation and seldom have a public meeting at which questions are not asked about the prospect of a pensions scheme. The right hon. Gentleman by this Bill has, as I say, added one brick to the edifice. I hope that sooner or later this Government or some other Government will deal with this tremendous problem and with this widespread feeling of insecurity in the country. The fact that such a feeling exists is bad for the country because who can do his best for the nation when he feels that his old age is insecure? I, therefore, join in the suggestions that have been made that we should follow up this small Measure by taking a very early opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter and co-ordinating the whole of the social insurance system, so as to give the people of this country that security for which they are asking.

2.16 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: I suppose I ought to apologise for intervening in this Debate, because this Bill does not refer to my part of the country, at any rate at the moment, but I have always watched with very close attention the

various Acts of Parliament which pass this House, with a view to following them up in my country if they are advantageous. I have been very much impressed by some of the speeches that have been made on the Third Reading of this Bill, and especially with their sincerity, with the desire to see everybody included, and with the wish that none of the benefits which have hitherto been enjoyed shall be curtailed. As with many other Bills that have been passed in this House, there is somebody left out. Recently we have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the inequalities of the incidence of taxation, and it would seem that we cannot have any Measure that is absolutely without defects. It is therefore usually a question of accepting half a loaf.
I am hoping, nevertheless, that Northern Ireland will follow suit in this matter. I have no doubt that we have exactly the same conditions there as are to be found over here and that they are looking foward to this Measure being extended to Northern Ireland. I would like to join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced a Bill of so far-reaching a character, which, although it does not go the entire way that one would like it to go, does go part of the way, and we accept it as such. I have no doubt that, as frequently happens in the operation of these Measures, defects will appear, and that not only hon. Members opposite, but hon. Members on this side as well, will be appealed to from time to time to repair deficiencies; and it will be the duty of Members in all parts of the House to make an appeal to the Minister for the time being to put those deficiencies right. I should like again to join, from my part of the world, in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having safely got this Measure through so far, and in hoping that my people on the other side will take it up and follow suit in the not too distant future.

2.19 p.m.

Mr. T. E. Harvey: The Minister of Health must feel a sense of wearied satisfaction at the chorus of approval that has come from almost every quarter of the House. Perhaps I might be allowed, while joining in that chorus with qualifications, to mention that I think I am the only Member of the House now in the Chamber who


was present in 1911 during the long discussions on the first social insurance Measure. I think it is a very remarkable thing to cast back one's memory to that time and to notice the difference of tone in the debates in this Hous ein confronting this subject. There was an intense feeling of heat and bitterness then, in the long discussions on that Measure, and it seemed at one time as though it was a Measure which would have to be repealed, according to what was said by some of its leading opponents, but that Measure is now the basis of a great social fabric, and the Minister who is in charge of this Bill is rightly taking pride in the fact that he is adding a further stage to this great social fabric. Everyone throughout the country accepts this as part of the essential structure of our social life, and it is a great thing that we should have had that consensus of opinion and that on all sides there should be a willingness to contribute to this great structure and a sense that we are joining in a common effort which is above party.
When one realises that, and realises also that it is felt in all quarters of the House that this is something in which we can all share and to which we can all bring some contribution, it is with the greater regret that one feels that there still remain defects which the Minister has not been able to remedy as the Bill has passed through its various stages. The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) have alluded to what I feel to be the gravest of those defects, and I still hope that when the time comes, as come it must, for a further revision of this legislation, the Minister, or it may be his successor—but, let us hope, a Minister as able and far-seeing as he—will be able to remedy this grave defect, because it leaves a sense of injustice, not only among those women who will be shut out from the benefits of this Bill in its present form, but also among a large number of other women, and men too, who resent any thought that there is a principle of sex inequality introduced into the law.
I know that that is not in the intention of the Minister. He has pointed out that in the Bill as we have it the differentiation comes because there is a larger burden to be borne by the man than by the woman,

but, if that be the case, the law itself should provide that the income limit should be fixed having regard to the burden borne by the person and not having regard to sex. I believe that that change can be made in the future, and I hope very much that when the time for a consolidating and amending Measure comes, the Minister will see his way to remove that defect and possibly, I hope, also to deal with other defects that have been pointed out during the course of these discussions. With all that, I think we can feel, in spite of our regret, that a very big step forward has been made in this Measure, and we are very grateful to the Minister for having made it.

2.24 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I am very much indebted to hon. Members in all parts of the House for their observations, personal to myself and in reference to the Measure, and I would like particularly to thank the Standing Committee upstairs for their close examination of it. I think it is fair to say, as so many hon. Members have already said, in all parts of the House, that this scheme undoubtedly has a very wide popular appeal. We can tell that by the correspondence in my Department, and I have been impressed by the many and varied walks of life in which persons who will benefit by the Bill are to be found. I think we can claim without exaggeration that it is abundantly evident that it will fill a definite gap in our existing social insurance scheme and that it will afford, I hope, to large numbers who have been too often forgotten by the State, a welcome opportunity, on favourable terms, of providing against life's greatest anxieties, to which many hon. Members have referred, namely, premature death and old age. Whatever may be the defects of the scheme and whatever it may or may not include, I think it can be claimed that, so far as the insurance provisions provided in it are concerned, it does provide the best and the cheapest and, I think, the safest policy of its kind in the world.
There have been a few notes of criticism, but none, I think, as regards the desirability and the need of this Measure. It is perfectly natural that there should be a number of people who should desire that certain of the conditions laid down in the Bill should be waived or varied, so that they might


enter the scheme. That is to be expected. The last speaker, the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. T. E. Harvey) referred to the Debates of 1911, which I remember so well, and I also remember serving on the first National Insurance Advisory Committee. It was natural that any such Measure should be criticised. When you introduce such Measures it seems that you must have criticism from people who are just on the borderline, and it is inevitable, I am afraid, in any insurance scheme that we endeavour to devise.
As regards the position of women, I am rather inclined to let the other sex, as I generally do when I meet them in private life, have the last word. I have endeavoured to put the point of view of the provisions of the Bill to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), but I always recall that when she first came to me about this matter she said to me, "Whatever you may say, I shall remain of the same opinion." I cannot forbear, having regard to the observations of my hon. Friend on the respective needs of women and men, to fortify myself by some quotations from a recently issued book which has caused a considerable amount of public attention and which was written by one of the most eminent social reformers of the day, Mr. Rowntree, on "The Human Needs of Labour." In one of the chapters in that book he discusses the particular question which was raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) as to whether, in fact, although he recognises that there is a number of women who have many claims upon them, women as a section of the community bear any real burden in respect of dependants.
Mr. Rowntree finds himself much in the same position as I do, that there is undoubtedly a number of cases that could be given of women who have dependants upon them. He refers to an investigation made by Mr. Stewart and himself in 1921 which covered 11 cities. They examined the cases of 13,637 women workers of 18 years of age or over, 11,800 of whom were single, 951 married, and 806 widows. Of this total, Mr. Rowntree found 11,982, or 87.94 per cent., supporting themselves only, and only 1,645, or I2.06 per cent., wholly or partially supporting others. He examined the question whether women's wages ought to be

augmented, and he says for the purposes of his argument that, so far as the dependants upon women were concerned, he does not think, while there were a number of exceptional cases, he is called upon to make special provision for them. He goes on to say:
We further ascertained that no less than two-thirds of the cases where women workers were responsible for the support of others were due to the death of the normal breadwinner. Since the results of this investigation were discovered in 1921 pensions for widows and orphans have been granted and thus the responsibility of women workers for the maintenance of dependants have been materially lessened. Taking all the circumstances into account, we should not be justified in assuming that more than a small minority of women workers are responsible for the complete or partial maintenance of dependants.
I think that is a judgment which I am entitled, so fiercely assailed as I have been this afternoon, to seek in aid of the view I have taken.
I would like to add one or two observations on points which were put to me on the operation of this scheme. I would like, first, to remind the House that, apart from the matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman, the Committee on my instigation made a number of valuable extensions of the scheme, and it is as well that they should be widely known in order that people will be able to take advantage of them. The first allows men to elect whether they will enter the new scheme for all the benefits or, at a reduced contribution, for the purposes of widows' and orphans' pensions only. Representations were made to me after the Second Reading by a number of organisations which said that many men, while welcoming the opportunity of securing protection for their wives and children in the event of their premature death, did not desire to effect one for old age because they had made other provisions, and might be deterred from entering the scheme if they were compelled to pay for a benefit which they did not require.
Another provision has been made for the benefit of women who cease to be insured on marriage to insured men. One effect of the Bill, I am glad to say, is that for the first time a woman on marriage can be a voluntary contributor for pension purposes. It has always been difficult in national health insurance—and I remember the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) having to wage a stiff fight on this matter


—to bar women in this respect, and now, for the first time, married women can be voluntary contributors for pensions. This is a valuable right where the husband is not an insured person. Where, however, an insured woman marries an insured man she will reasonably count on benefiting from his insurance and she will, therefore, no doubt think it unnecessary to maintain her own insurance on a voluntary basis. Cases will arise, however, where through the early death of her husband the title to a widow's pension is imperfect, and the effect of the Amendment we have made in Committee is that the widow on again becoming insured, whether as a voluntary contributor or as an employed contributor, will be allowed to pick up her old insurance to help her qualify for the old age pension. Her insurance before marriage will be treated as having continued throughout marriage, and she will not in any way be prejudiced by the non-payment of contributions during that period. That, I think, will be of assistance in a number of cases.
Another Amendment we made was for the purpose of securing that all elderly voluntary contributors under the Insurance Acts should enjoy the benefit of a reduction in the number of contributions which must be paid each year if insurance is to be maintained. The Bill as introduced limited this concession to a particular class and it was extended in Committee. Another Amendment of which I should like hon. Members to know in order that they may be able to explain it to their constituents, will enable widows who otherwise have beeen excluded to become insured under the new scheme. It arises in a certain class of case. Men are excluded from the new scheme where the terms of their employment provide benefits at least equivalent to all the benefits of the scheme, including the benefits for widows. I have the case of a police officer in mind. Where a man in this class married after he left the service and the terms of his employment did not provide for his wife if she survives—for instance, a police officer if he marries after he has left the force—no provision is made for his wife. Therefore we thought it right to provide for this class and this will be done by the Amendment which was carried in Committee. I hope the House will agree that these are four

valuable extensions which prove the benefit of the Committee stage of the Bill.
I want to say a word or two for the information of the public about the position of the existing voluntary contributor, and the steps that will have to be taken by the societies with regard to existing voluntary contributors. The Bill provides that until a prescribed date the present position will remain unchanged. I am going to make the prescribed date one which, I hope, the approved societies will find reasonable, namely, 4th July, 1938. I think that that will give a reasonable period. From that date those who have not notified their societies that they wish to continue as before, that is with their health and pensions insurance interlocked, will be separately insured under the two schemes. I emphasise that in view of the misapprehensions which still existed this morning. They will still be insured under the two schemes. It will, therefore, be necessary for approved societies to give voluntary contributors the opportunity of making their choice before 4th July, 1938. I shall see that a circular is issued to approved societies early in the autumn explaining the procedure in detail. I would like to say what we propose to do because hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to know.
It is proposed that societies should issue to every voluntary contributor, with the contribution card for the half year beginning in January next, a form on which he can notify which course he proposes to adopt. The form will be supplied to societies by my Department, and will explain fully the two courses open to the contributor and what his future position will be according as he decides one way or the other. That will be clearly set out for him. When that has been done, the societies will need to furnish my Department before 4th July, 1938, particulars of those members who have not notified them that they intend that their position should remain unchanged. I recognise that this will involve some work on the part of the approved societies, and, as I am a believer in the labourer being worthy of his hire and of trade union rates for Ministers, and matters of that kind, I think that the societies ought to be remunerated for the additional work involved. I am ready to give effect to this to the satisfaction, I hope, of the approved societies.
The only further point I want to say about voluntary contributors is that the existing voluntary contributor who does not elect to remain exactly as he is will become subject to certain of the conditions of the new scheme, including the proision in Sub-section (7) of Clause 5 relating to the excusal of contributions after the first 13 weeks of protracted illness. Persons who will in future become voluntary contributors on ceasing to be compulsorily insured will be subject to that condition.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Suppose a man transfers from his present voluntary condition and is in other friendly societies and falls sick, will he have to pay his contributions to the pensions fund when he is sick and is drawing friendly society benefits?

Sir K. Wood: If he is insured with other societies his contributions will remain payable under the scheme, and he will, as I have stated, be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Clause 5 relating to the excusal of contributions after the first 13 weeks illness. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will discuss the point with me privately. I would like to say a word about applications for admission to this scheme. The Act comes into operation on 3rd January next year, and many intending entrants will wish to be sure of being in a position to qualify for the benefits of the scheme at the earliest possible moment. It is plain that contributions cannot be paid for any period before the actual date of application for admission, so that persons who wish to be in from the beginning must make application by 3rd January, 1938, at the latest. The application forms must be examined and the applicant informed that he has been admitted before he can begin to pay contributions, and therefore, if he is to be in a position to begin his contributions in the first week application must be made some time in advance. For that purpose I propose to have application forms and explanatory leaflets on issue at Post Offices throughout the country very soon after the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and I do hope that all who desire to take advantage of the extremely favourable terms offered to initial entrants will make early application. While it is true that these terms remain open until 2nd January, 1939, it will be most unfortunate, from the point of view

of my Department, which in any event has to bear rather heavy burdens in connection with the administration of this scheme, if it is flooded with applications when the initial year is on the point of expiring.
I think that most people—a t least, I hope so—will, after reading the explanatory leaflet, be in a position to decide whether to send in an application form or not; but there may be difficulties, and I can understand that it will be so, in view of the complexities of insurance schemes of this kind, and I should like it to be known that advice and assistance will be freely given at any of the 170 local offices of the Insurance Department in England, Scotland and Wales, and people will also have the assistance of very many thousands of approved societies' workers and officials throughout the country. Although there have been criticisms I have consulted the approved societies through their consultative council, and I know they will be the first to see that the terms of this Bill, when it is on the Statute Book, are properly explained, and will do their best to see that all whom they think it will benefit avail themselves of the scheme.
I have only to say this word in conclusion, that while I hope that I have not put the claims of this scheme too high, I trust that it will be by no means the last insurance Bill to be introduced. For instance, I hope that it may soon be possible to introduce another Measure which will fill another gap. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce national insurance legislation to entitle boys and girls to receive medical benefit immediately on taking up employment after leaving school, instead of having to wait until the age of 16, as at present. I should very much have liked to have introduced that Measure a little time ago, but its introduction has been postponed pending a settlement of the terms of remuneration of the medical practitioners. I announced to-day that the question of remuneration was going to be settled, I hope quite amicably, and certainly by agreement, between the medical practitioners and myself, by an arbitration court at an early date. Therefore, I am looking forward to an early settlement of the only matter which prevents the introduction of that Bill, and in that way I hope to see another gap in insurance filled.
I should be one of the first to desire to see a good many gaps filled, but we have to recognise that this social protection of our people must be an evolutionary process, and in case some criticisms are made, I should like to point out what this country does provide already in the way of pensions, an accomplishment to which all parties in the State have contributed, because they have all had a hand in it. It is remarkable to note that there are in Great Britain to-day more than 19,000,000 persons insured under the Contributory Pensions Acts, and, if their dependants be taken into account, it may be said that 75 per cent. of the population are protected by this scheme. Already, 4,250,000 persons have participated in the pensions and allowances, and £350,000,000 has been paid out in benefits to persons under 70 while a further £170,000,000 has been paid to persons over 70 entitled to pensions by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Acts.
An hon. Member was speaking a few minutes ago about what the State had or had not done. This achievement has meant considerable financial aid from the State. The Exchequer contribution to the cost of pensions payable to persons under 70 was no less than £15,000,000 during the financial year 1936–37 alone. These contributions rise by £1,000,000 a year to £21,000,000 in 1942–43, at which figure it will remain until 1945–46, after which Parliament is to determine the further subventions required. The cost to the Exchequer in 1936–37 of pensions for those over 70, payable by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Acts, was approximately £25,600,000, and the cost of the pensions to people over 70 payable under the Old Age Pensions Acts, by reference to means, was approximately £18,400,000. I must confess that I have played my part in running up the bill, and I do it with a clear conscience, and to those figures must now be added the considerable cost of this scheme. If there are 700,000 entrants, and I shall be disappointed if there are not, then, if we exclude the consideration of the financial commitments in respect of pensions for those over the age of 70, the Exchequer liability will be £43,000,000. Therefore, I suggest that we can legitimately claim that no country makes such a financial contribution, or has a wider range of social protection for its people,

as ours. I claim for this Measure this afternoon that it is another considerable step forward, another, and I think considerable, contribution to the great schemes we already have, and I submit it with confidence to the House as a Measure which meets a real need, one which encourages self help and preserves self-respect and one which, I hope, will bring a further measure of happiness and contentment to many British homes.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now Adjourn."[Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.]

Orders of the Day — SPAIN.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: It would be singularly inappropriate if the House were to adjourn to-day without recalling once again the tragic conditions which exist in Spain, which have occupied the attention of this House many times recently. Nine months have passed since the struggle began, and it has involved immense losses and suffering, and it has now become quite clear that what was at one time deemed to be a purely local conflict is a much larger affair and that we are directly involved in the circumstances of that struggle. For many months past we have been discussing the merits and the demerits of the scheme of non-intervention which came into existence partly under the influence of His Majesty's Government. I think they, jointly with the French Government, accept responsibility for the introduction of the Non-Intervention Pact. In that Pact no less than 27 nations have been joined in a desire to maintain a state of neutrality and a determination not to intervene in the struggle, in order that the two factions in Spain may be given an opportunity of deciding, according to the greater strength or the greater will of the one side or the other, what the future of Spain is to be.
In common with a large number of Members in this House and an increasing number of people outside, I am disappointed with the results of the Non-Intervention Pact. I do not think that disappointment is due to the intentions of


the Pact or to the details of it, or to the commitments under it which have been entered into from time to time. The disappointment is due to the repeated evasions of the Pact by the signatory States themselves. I do not think that recent history can show any declaration of an international character which has been so openly and so palpably evaded as this. It has almost brought a sense of disgust. It has filled me with a kind of moral disbelief in the intentions of the signatories, and I feel sure that large numbers of Members and people in the country share that view. If this Pact is not to be observed, if it is simply a pretence, an elaborate system of camouflage to permit intervention while the pretext of non-intervention is maintained, it is a highly dangerous thing, much more dangerous to the peace of Europe and much more detrimental to the cause of Spain than if there were no such Pact.
To-day I should like to examine the working of the Pact, though not at very great length. I suffered criticism from having spoken too much on a recent occasion, and to-day I shall be as brief as possible. This conflict in Spain was never a civil war, though I agree there are the elements of civil war in it. A sidelight on that point came to my notice by accident. Towards the end of 1935 I was travelling on the Continent and met a young Spaniard, whose card I have, but whose name I shall not mention, who belonged to the parties of the Right in Spain. This young gentleman told me the purport of his visit to Spain. He had been living in England for some months, and had acquired some knowledge of English and we carried on a conversation. He told me that he was going to Madrid to withdraw his parents from that city in anticipation of an armed struggle, a coup d' éat by the parties of the Right in which the Army would join and which they hoped would be immediately successful, and that as a result they would set up a corporate State. All that was told me before the end of December, 1935.
Hon. Members can imagine the interest with which, during the succeeding months, I followed the events in Spain which resulted from the purely political desire on the part of the Right in Spain to assert their authority over the Government and to destroy the popular Consti-

tution in order to set up an alternative Government. That individual spoke for a section of the Spanish people. The plan miscarried; the outbreak in Spain was delayed until July. No one will deny that when that outbreak took place there appeared immediately on the scene in Spain not merely the two disputing parties, but intervention from foreign States. From that time there has been constant intervention. Assistance has been given to one side by a certain section of people, and to the other side a supply of adherents and of volunteers who have come from various countries of Europe.
It must be said that no Government has intervened. The Governments who were signatory to the Non-Intervention Pact have not intervened, as Governments. The Governments who have taken part in intervention have been Germany, Italy and Russia. They maintain that intervention up to this date. It would be a great mistake to avoid mentioning the situation as it is, but I wish to avoid provocation to-day. The situation is exceedingly difficult, and I know that the Foreign Office of this country has a very difficult row to hoe. There is no use, however, in burking the fact that this conflict has not been allowed, from the very beginning, to be a civil war. To assume that it is a war against religion or a conflict between rival parties in Spain would be to mislead ourselves, mislead the House and mislead the people who sent us here. Events have shown, in regard to the contention that this is a war in defence of religion, that the most loyal Catholic bodies in Spain, if not in Europe, the most universal and homogeneous in matters of religion, have been pursued with all kinds of weapons of destruction, even in churches while at their devotions. They have been killed in very large numbers, not by their political antagonists in Spain but by their opponents in the armed forces from other countries.
Recent events have caused great consternation in this country. First of all, there was the food blockade. The Non-Intervention Pact would be entirely vitiated if it were unable to prevent the supply of munitions to be carried into Spanish ports, but it was never the intention of the Non-Intervention Pact to prevent food benig taken to starving people or to prevent necessary supplies


being carried from this and other countries to Spain. Interference with shipping on its lawful business going into or coming out of Spanish ports was not in accordance with the Pact, and it would be wrong for the people of this country to allow it to go on. I hope that this House will never believe that the Non-Intervention Pact was designed to pre vent food and goods being carried to Spain. The Spanish Government have their rights, and those rights are curtailed only so far as the Pact of Non-Intervention bound the 27 nations. I hope the House will not be persuaded to carry what is said to be non-intervention into a sphere in which the Non-Intervention Pact never presumed to enter.
I would like to ask a question or two about this food blockade. Apparently there is now no danger that the people of Bilbao will die of starvation. That blot upon the people of Europe and the commerce and trade of the world has been removed. The danger of starvation has been obviated, and food has entered the port of Bilbao, under the protection of the British Fleet, as it should do. When the British Fleet does not accompany and protect British vessels, it will not deserve the confidence that it has had in the hearts of the people of this country. The British vessels received the protection of the British Navy, and the immediate threat of starvation has been removed from the people of Bilbao.
Now I would refer to the incident of Guernica, the ancient capital of an ancient race, of an independent race, proud of its position; a small community of proud people. There is no community in the world which has a higher claim to a recognition of its life and tradition than the Basque population. In that ancient country the foundations of our democratic system were laid long ago, the ideas of Democracy which which we have adopted in this country were carried out and the Catholic faith and ritual have been performed day after day for hundreds of years. The city was well behind the lines, and there does not appear to be any military reason for the attack which fell upon it. It has been denied that this city was attacked from the sky and that the bombers came down to low levels to do their work. It was from the air that they did that work.

The city was destroyed and large numbers of civilians were pursued from their homes with bombs which dropped charges of high explosives. People were pursued in the countryside by machine gun, even through the ploughed fields. A terrible thing, of immense and overwhelming significance, happened that day.
We should be false to the best interests of our own country, and of our people in the world, if we allowed the incident of Guernica to pass unnoticed in this House. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says: "German frightfulness." It was somebody's frightfulness. It was an act of frightfulness. It is said that the Germans are very sensitive, that they protest against the allegations that those aeroplanes were German aeroplanes. The allegation goes further and says that they were German pilots who flew those aeroplanes. Bombs were dropped; that cannot be disputed. The nationality of the pilots is a question to be decided by further evidence. In face of these denials and repudiations, and the counter-allegation that it was a journalist who conceived this dastardly act and that no such thing happened—the denial has taken that form—and that there was no air raid on that day, although the damage was done and it stands to be witnessed by anybody who cares to go there, I would ask the Foreign Secretary whether there is any reason why this peculiar example of the frightfulness of modern military minds should not be impartially investigated. Is there any obstacle or difficulty about the despatch of persons representing neutral States, the League of Nations, or both sides in this dispute, and their coming together and going to examine the evidence on the spot, and the testimony?
I would like to know whether the Foreign Office are prepared to press in this matter for an impartial investigation which would remove all these allegations of partiality. It is said that this is propaganda by the Germans. There is too much propaganda at the present time, although I do not argue that it is all on one side. I saw a letter during the last few days describing the conditions on General Franco's side. If I were to tell the House what has been reported to me about the conditions in which the civil population are living on General Franco's side, hon. Members would be very much incensed


indeed. On the other side of the House much propaganda has been carried on against the Spanish Government, and it has taken the most subtle form of appealing to the religious sentiments of the people. That is absolutely unfair, and I know it to be false. I would hesitate very much against adding by any word of mine to the responsibility which I feel Germany already has, but I would like all these charges of intervention and of frightfulness to be fully examined on the spot, including the destruction of Guernica. This is an occasion upon which this country is entitled to have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and there is no way of arriving at that happy result except by impartial inquiry.
I want to say a word about the Government's position in face of the overcrowding in Bilbao and in other cities. A large number of people have left their homes, as would happen in this country if we were engaged in a similar conflict, and as has happened elsewhere. Millions of people were in the same position all over Europe during the last War. Bilbao has an enormous number of women and children for whom no suitable living conditions can be provided. There is a proposition that a large number of children should be brought into this country. That is not confined to the people of one faith. Among the Catholic community of this country there is very warm sympathy indeed with their co-religionists in Bilbao and the Basque provinces. There are many homes in this country the doors of which will be open to receive the children from the city of Bilbao, if the Government will give the same protection to the vessels which bring them as they have done for vessels taking food to Bilbao. I hope we shall get a statement from the Foreign Minister on that point.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the working of the control system? It is said—and one wonders why this kind of thing is possible and why a protest among the signatories of the Non-Intervention Pact is not more decisive and more audible than it is—that an Italian vessel has lately been joined to the Italian naval forces as an auxiliary. The vessel is called the "Liguria," and that vessel has even in the last week been employed with the Italian Navy and has carried troops and

material to Spain. It has escaped the supervision and control which was brought into operation about a fortnight ago, because it is now deemed to be an Italian war vessel. I would like to know what the Foreign Secretary thinks of the condition of things when a Government signatory of the Non-Intervention Pact can, by adding to its naval register a vessel not of a naval character, exempt that vessel from inspection and supervision and permit that Government auxiliary vessel to carry on intervention under Government auspices while it still pretends that it is a party to the Non-Intervention Pact. In such conditions I think that Pact becomes a farce. If that kind of thing has been carried on in the past week I think the non-intervention arrangement is working so badly as to merit the contempt of everybody.
Another point. I have heard this for weeks now from fairly authentic sources. Aeroplanes are said to have gone from Germany to Italy, to have flown the next day from Italy to Spain with the full knowledge of the authorities in Germany, the authorities in Italy, and of General Franco. It is also said that large numbers of planes have flown at a great height over France right away from Germany into Spain. What is the use of a Boundary Commission and of a system of supervision that is confined merely to ground level, on land and sea, if planes are allowed to fly at a height of 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 or even 10,000 feet up and evade all supervision? I hope that the Foreign Secretary will enlighten the House and take the House into his full confidence. This country has been deeply moved by the occurrences in Spain in recent days. He will not dispel the feeling of disquiet in the minds of large numbers of our people unless he can tell our people frankly what obstacle there is to the fulfilment of the pledge of nonintervention, and what steps will be taken to remedy the defects in that system.

3.18 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I am certain that the House has been deeply impressed by the moderate way in which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has introduced this subject. It is not a topic we can easily settle in the heat of debate. We have, above all, to reach a conclusion on one point; whether a policy of neutrality or a policy of intervention will


serve the interests of European peace, and, secondly, will serve our own interests. Let me first deal with the case for intervention. I think it is a fact that the Fascists hope that a Fascist Government in Spain, which owes its position to their support, would be subservient to their policy. If such were the case, in the unhappy event of war, we should have to face the fact that a possibly hostile Spain would gravely menace our interests. For there are few people in this country who do not realise to-day the importance to us of the Mediterranean. It is our main line of communication to the East. In the event of war in the Far East not only the transports carrying troops to Singapore, but the cruisers escorting them and the Battle Fleet, would have to pass along the 2,000 miles of narrow waters which lie between Gibraltar and Port Said. Likewise we bring along that line of communication many valuable raw materials from Australasia and from our Eastern possessions which our industry requires —rubber, tin, wool and oil. And since our battle fleet now uses exclusively oil and the greater part of our mercantile marine uses oil, the Haifa pipe line has become all the more important. In the Mediterranean likewise we see every day ships passing second only in number to those passing daily on the Atlantic.
These being the facts, we can well imagine one of those strategists in foreign war offices, who delight in playing imaginary war games, bringing the following facts to the attention of his colleagues. Gibraltar lies between the two Spanish naval bases of Cadiz and Cartagena. The port of Ceuta, in Spanish Morocco, lies only 14 miles from Gibraltar across the narrow straits; the rocky inlets of the coast of Andalusia offer ideal harbourages for submarines. Further to the North our line of communication between England and Africa passes close to the port of Ferrol. The same facts apply equally to France, for the main line of communication between Marseilles and Algeria passes close to Minorca. Now France looks to her northern and equatorial African possessions as a vast reservoir from which she obtains not only the Senegalese troops and the North African troops which form her colonial forces, but the valuable products, such as grain, which her population

needs in time of war. These facts, in the opinion of certain foreign governments, would form a bargaining factor to obtain concessions from the democratic countries either in the centre and east of Europe or in the colonial sphere.
But these calculations, so admirable on paper, break down on one essential fact: they do not take into account the Spanish character. The Spanish people are passionately proud and nationalistic people, and throughout the course of their long history they have only rallied together from their separate regions on two occasions. And on those two occasions they rallied for the defeat of foreign enemies, first of all the Moors, and secondly Napoleon. The whole policy of this country has been based on the fact that the Spanish people in the long run resent interference. After the Napoleonic war this country resisted the demand of the Tsar Alexander I to muster the countries of the Grand Alliance and interfere in Spain. Subsequently Canning made it abundantly clear that we should not tolerate any interference by foreign Powers in Spanish Colonies overseas—a declaration which, in fact, was responsible for the Monroe doctrine in America. We interfered in Spain only on one occasion —during the Napoleonic Wars, when there came a united demand from a depressed people to throw out the foreign invader. Any of us who have studied history will know that that Spanish war was the beginning of the downfall of Napoleon. As his armies, which had been victorious on every European battlefield, struggled backwards across the high uplands of Spain they were faced by countless ambuscades, their baggage trains were waylaid, and every man, woman and child who could muster a knife or a musket turned against them.
To-day we have not even the united demand we had in the Napoleonic Wars to intervene. The geographical features of Spain, which through centuries have divided her people, still operate to-day. The Catalan is different from the Andalusian. The Basque is different from the Valencian, the Northerner from the Southerner. As we have seen from history, a united demand will only come from Spain when a foreign invader must be thrown out. That is why I am persuaded that a policy of neutrality will


serve not only our interests best but will serve the cause of European peace. When the combatants become exhausted, when passions have begun to cool, then I am certain that the leaders of both sides will turn to the countries which have tried to pursue a policy of neutrality and ask them to become mediators. Only then, after a long period of patient waiting, and after severe provocation, the policy of neutrality which His Majesty's Government are now pursuing will amply have justified itself.

3.26 p.m.

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend has dealt with the situation in a very interesting, but, I think, rather optimistic way. If it were true that the Spaniards, when the civil war is over, would immediately throw aside all their helpers, no doubt the situation would be very satisfactory, but I think experience is showing that it is very difficult for people to resist and rebel against those who possess all the power. Furthermore, the policy of nonintervention has never worked, and is not working now, and therefore arguments which imply that that is so really do not seem to me to apply to the situation existing to-day, and which has existed during the last few months. We have all been very much moved, whatever view we may take about this matter, by the terrible events of the last few days. I know there are some people who say that in modern warfare you cannot help this sort of thing, that it is inevitable that towns, with the women and children, should be attacked and bombed. No doubt there is a great deal of truth in that; you cannot make war into a gentleman's game, you cannot make it into a decent thing that can be played according to strict rules. It is a horrible, disgusting thing, and you can never make it into anything else. At the same time, there is an opportunity presented now from the humanitarian point of view by which possibly we may be able to lessen some of its horrors, and what the events of the last few days have done really is to dramatise in a very striking form the horror of what has been going on ever since last July throughout the length and breadth of Spain.
There is no doubt, I should have thought, that there has been a systematic bombing of Guernica. Let anybody try to read objectively the accounts given in

the "Times" by its correspondents on both sides, finishing up with the one this morning from Bilbao by a highly accomplished journalist, who has no reason to report anything but the facts as he sees them. The conclusion that I, at any rate, reached is that systematic bombing has taken place by German aeroplanes. I see no evidence anywhere to suggest that it is a case of mass suicide by the Basque people. If there is any doubt about the matter, certainly let us have an inquiry into what has been going on—an inquiry on both sides—and if the Government are trying to arrange for that, I wish them every possible success. I understand the French Government are already, through their agents on the spot, conducting an inquiry of some kind: perhaps we can have some information about that. I should have thought that the Government might, in association with the French Government, or through their own agents on the spot, be able to get important information on the subject. I should have thought that the best method of all would be to bring in the machinery of the League of Nations—it has been left out of the picture far too long—and that, if it is the wish of the Spanish Government, an inquiry of neutrals wholly disinterested in the conflict should go and find out on behalf of that organisation what has been happening on both sides. The mere fact that an inquiry was taking place would, I feel sure, do a very great deal to prevent such incidents as have occurred, and to lessen the horror of anything that might take place in the future. I hope that that subject is going to be dealt with at the Council of the League of Nations on 24th May. That is the appropriate moment and the appropriate place for it to be brought up, and I hope there will be no endeavour on any side to brush it off the agenda, or to prevent it from reaching the agenda if it is not already there.
The immediate danger with which Spain is faced at the present moment is the arrival of large numbers of aeroplanes from certain States. There is no control over that, and it is very difficult to have any control in regard to the arrival of aircraft, but I do not think it is unfair to assume that there is some truth in the statements that by night aeroplanes in considerable numbers have been arriving. They may not necessarily be military aeroplanes, because civil aircraft can be


very easily converted on arrival, and it has been suggested that the occasion will be taken of Coronation week, when our attention is otherwise occupied, to carry out a raid, similar to that which took place on Guernica, on the population of Bilbao, and then on the population of Madrid. I venture to hope that the mere fact that this suggestion is being openly debated to-day and condemned universally in this House, as I am sure it will be, will be enough to prevent the danger of any such additional horror taking place.
The question is, how can a danger of that kind be dealt with? The situation is very much more difficult than it was some months ago. At the beginning the Spanish Government was saved, and the position of the Western democracies was saved, by the timely aid that was given by the Russian Government in October of last year. It seemed to me to be a proper thing to take place. Due notice was given of it, and it was only a counterweight to what had been taking place on the other side. We were saved by that operation. That, however, cannot happen now, because it is very difficult for aeroplanes to arrive from a long distance. I venture to suggest that the best course for the Government to take to prevent any gross breach of the neutrality regulations, as this would be, would be to make it clear to the world, firmly and directly, that we should regard anything of that kind as a complete breach of the Non-Intervention Arrangement, which would endanger it, and, indeed, bring the whole system to the ground at once, and that we should feel free to give to the other non-intervention countries complete liberty to do what they liked in the way of supplying counter-aircraft if they cared to do so, or of providing facilities for the landing in transit of aircraft going to Spain.
I do not see how a danger of this kind can really be dealt with—if it be a danger, and I am assuming that it is for the purposes of argument—except by some resolute and clear declaration of that kind. No meetings of the Non-Intervention Committee, or arguments round a table, are going to have any effect upon it. Of course I hope that there is nothing in what I am saying, but I do not think, in view of recent experience and of the

information that is coming forward, that it would be fair to assume anything of the kind. I hope, too, that the Government will also make it clear, quite apart from the aerial side, that, if the nonintervention scheme which is in operation round the coasts of Spain, and which is regarded with such hostility by the Spanish Government, does operate unfairly, if it is not carried out by the parties to it, we will not hesitate to take an early opportunity of saying that we cannot go on with this pretence, but must bring it to an end. Surely it ought to be a genuine thing, or we ought not to be parties to it at all.
I want to make a few remarks with regard to intervention, not overseas, but at home. I understand that the policy of the Government is that no person should come to this country on either side from Spain in order to carry out propaganda or incite to activity on one side or the other; but I understand that that does not apply to Spanish citizens who are resident in this country. We have had one very interesting example of the activities that are being followed by certain friends of General Franco in this country, but from the Government's point of view the kind of activities to which I am going to refer would appear to be equally improper on either side if nonintervention is to be insisted upon. I refer to a notorious letter written by a gentleman whom I have no reason to suppose to be anything but a very distinguished person in his own country and in this country, the Marquis del Moral —a letter which he addressed to a certain Noble Lord, whom I do not wish to bring in at all. I will not read the whole letter, unless I am pressed to do so, because it is rather long, but it begins:
I have been following with grave concern the debates on the blockade of Bilbao. In the main debate it was arranged that the Government alone should face the Opposition Vote of Censure.
That meant that the Government should do all the talking, and none of the sympathisers of General Franco should butt in. It may be that that has been reconsidered, and that the ranks of the Franco sympathisers are going to be thrown into the fray to-day and on future occasions.

Captain Cazalet: Was that a private letter, or has it been published?

Mr. Mander: I do not know whether it was a private letter or not, but it must have been published widely throughout the Press, and it is certainly public now. If it were private, I should not, of course, pursue it, but everybody knows all about it.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the letter has now been published in the "Morning Post" as the letter of a Member of this House?

Mr. Mander: I do not know; it may be so. It goes on to say:
At first, I was as much inclined to approve as anyone; but before I read the report in the morning's papers I was forced to change my mind.
Here is another passage of interest:
They"—
that is, the Opposition—
are hammering away at the same point more and more violently; and that astute politician, L.G., who always has his ear to the ground, is now joining in with all the old junk of the war legends… Only one thing can save them "—
that is, the Government—
If the rank and file join in on our side"—
is that going to happen? That is what we all want to see—
and even organise a counter-attack to the Socialists, they will at once see where the hulk of popular opinion lies. Can you help by supporting our case for even more neutrality?…Don't you think I am right? Unless our friends rally to the counterattack, I am sure we shall have to face a crisis. There is plenty of material for a counter-attack, and I shall be only too happy to supply you with shot and shell.
We shall await with interest the shot and shell.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Would the hon. Member say from what paper he is quoting?

Mr. Mander: This is from the "Daily Worker." There is no reason to suppose that it is not a perfectly true reproduction of the letter. I merely bring it forward to show the activities of Spaniards resident in this country, and I should have thought that, if there were a case on the other side where an attempt was being made by Spanish residents in this country to supply the Opposition—I am not aware of any, though I have inquired —with information for a Parliamentary Debate, it would be most strongly

objected to by hon. Members opposite. I want the House to consider whether we really cannot manage our own affairs here without interference from Spaniards on either side.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn ManninghamBuller: Is the hon. Member aware that many Members of this House receive, without asking for it, a great deal of propaganda from the Spanish Embassy in this country?

Mr. Mander: I am referring to the activities of Spaniards on either side resident in this country. The hon. and gallant Member can develop that point later. I am referring to private letters. Of course, printed documents are in a rather different category.

Mr. Denville: Is it not the case that some of these people are more Scottish than Spanish?

Mr. Mander: I pass to another subject. I was talking a day or two ago to a friend of mine who has recently paid a visit to nearly every capital of the smaller States in Europe, and has talked with leaders of public opinion, members of Governments, journalists and others, and he tells me that he finds exactly the same state of mind in every case. There is a welcome for British rearmament, but everywhere there is a tendency to wait, a hand-to-mouth policy, and always the question is asked: "When your rearmament is complete, what are you going to do with it? How are you going to use it?" That is the question that the whole world is asking at the present time. There are two possible answers. One is, and there are many supporters for the view in the House, that we should use it for the purpose of national protection, of isolation, of keeping out of any and every possible conflict in any part of the world, regardless of the consequences that might happen. If that be the position, then these small States throughout Europe are undoubtedly going to make terms with any potential aggressors who may be living near them, and the League system is going to come entirely to an end. If, however, the answer is, as I hope it is, that we are going to use it collectively in harmony with the forces of other countries against any aggressor, and that it will be known beforehand as a certainty that we shall do it in accordance with our obligations under the Covenant, it is still not


too late for this great country to save the world from the pit of destruction which it is now so rapidly approaching.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Donner: I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), and I must confess that on this occasion I do not find myself in agreement with him either, but I was a little puzzled by his statement that hon. Members on this side of the House should not rally to the support of the Government. It would appear to be the natural function of Members on this side to support the Government.

Mr. Mander: I said, in support of General Franco. It may be the same thing.

Mr. Donner: I am not aware that it is the same thing, but in any case I cannot understand why Members on this side who sympathise with General Franco should on that account be less entitled than the hon. Member and his friends to put forward their point of view. My object in rising is to draw attention to certain facts and to put forward a few arguments in the hope that these will prove some small contribution to to-day's Debate. I do so because, having visited Spain during the last 11 years nearly a dozen times, I believe I am not wholly ignorant of the history, circumstances, conditions and traditions of the Spanish people. Perhaps it is the very complexity of the facts before us, and perhaps also the complexity of the Spanish character, that leads me wholly to dissent from the interpretation of the facts as applied by the parties opposite. Indeed, I think the harsh and unsympathetic criticisms of General Franco to which we have listened, not so much perhaps to-day as on previous occasions, may prove to be of very poor service to this country and the Empire because, if General Franco wins, as I believe he will, those who disagree with the opinions that I hold will have done all they could have done to make the new Spain hostile to this country.
I confess I am not at all impressed by the arguments, too often assertions, which have been addressed to us by hon. Members opposite. Indeed the Socialist party appear to me to be strangely affected by this civil war, because they have espoused

the cause particularly of the Basques, and yet the Basques, if they are anything at all, are agriculturists and manufacturers of armaments. I have always understood that the party opposite object to the private manufacture of arms and believe in its abolition and have always called for cheap food for the benefit of the masses at the expense of our farmers. The hon. Member who opened the Debate said that the only Governments which have officially intervened are the German, Italian, and Portuguese. I think he was consistent in saying that but, at the same time, he cannot expect us to agree with him because we on this side of the House have never recognised any difference between the Government of Moscow and the Third International, and no one can deny the intervention in Spain of the Third International for a great many years. I think the mistakes which, in my opinion, the party opposite have made in considering this question are due to the fact that they are apt to judge the Spanish situation in the light of an English background, in the light of English and not of Spanish ideas. Indeed, those Members who have visited Spain have, perhaps, only visited one side, and not both, and perhaps also, in spite of themselves, they went there to collect evidence in support of their own preconceived opinions. They held these ideas before they left this country, and they certainly held them when they returned.
The issue in Spain is not, as many people would have us believe, people fighting for democracy on one side and for Fascism on the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Emmott) in what appeared to be a brilliant exposition of the case during the Easter Adjournment Debate on 25th March observed that the cause of General Franco is one deserving of the sympathies of those who care for the cause of constitutional government. Last June, before the revolution broke out, I had occasion to visit Gibraltar and made my way into Spain from there, and even then Gibraltar was flooded with refugees who were there because life and property were no longer safe in Spain. The hotels were full of them. They were there because the so-called constitutional Government had failed to protect the lives of its citizens, and even half a mile outside the British frontier people were molested by bands of armed Communists in lorries.


No one can dispute that. Scores of British subjects there will testify to the truth of this statement and these facts were reported daily in the Gibraltar newspapers. I, therefore, wish to emphasise the fact, which most Members even on the other side will probably admit in their hearts, that the men and women who are supporting General Franco are not people who wish to establish a corporate State. They are not all Fascists though some of them may be. Their underlying motive, the mainspring of their creed is the desire to ensure restoration of law and order and the unification of Spain.

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Member realise that in General Franco's recent statement occur these words:
The system of political parties with all that flows from them, representation by conflicting parties, and Parliament of the well known type will be implacably abolished.

Mr. Donner: I do not in the least deny that there may well be a military dictatorship temporarily established, but I emphatically deny that the mainspring and motive of the people who are supporting General Franco is to establish a corporate state or a permanent dictatorship. I ask the hon. Member to consider and remember the circumstances and conditions in which the Spanish people have lived for so many months. Harsh things have been said about the Nationalist cause in Spain by people who are genuinely anxious for our Imperial communications and the route to the Far East. They believe that, if Germany and Italy are successful in helping General Franco to win, they will gain a vice-like grip on that country. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. H. Kerr) said the Spanish people have always been proud. The Spaniards are a very proud people. Surely, there is no evidence lacking already to show that, when this conflict is over, the last people who will be popular in Spain will be foreigners, whoever they may be, and they are certain to ensure that they are expelled before very long. The only foreigners who are likely to be tolerated when this civil war is over are those who are likely to be able to help General Franco to rebuild Spain, and the only people who will be economically in a position to do that will be neither the Germans nor Italians but the Americans and ourselves. If it is only the Americans who will finally rebuild Spain and

not ourselves it will be due to the Radical propaganda in this country which will have alienated the new Spain from us.
Although I believe both Germans and Italians will leave Spain before long, Spain will not as easily or as quickly rid herself of Communism. That is a poison that has got into the very blood of Spain, and that poison was imported from outside, from Russia. It has been a long process, furtive, relentless and mortal. In a book "L'experience Rouge" written as far back as 1933, by the then Foreign Secretary of France, attention is drawn to his visit to the Red Museum in Moscow in which he saw photographs of the men who had been chosen by the Government of Moscow to start the revolution in Spain. He gave his experience of what he personally saw in Moscow. There is an old saying in Madrid that the wind of Madrid is not strong enough to blow out a candle, but is powerful enough to kill a man. That is the nature of Communism and that has been its effect in Spain. That is the real Russian intervention, and it dates as far back as 1917. There is controversy in and outside the House as to the exact date when Italian and German aeroplanes first made their appearance in Spain and whether they arrived in that country before the Russian tanks. It does not really matter whether one lot came a few weeks before the other. The real intervention of Russia is not so much her tanks, though I believe her military intervention has been on a far greater scale than most of us know, but her insidious and vile propaganda. That is the essential difference between the Russian intervention and the German and Italian. All three have sent tanks, aeroplanes and other arms, but several years before this happened Russia introduced this propaganda. The German and Italian effort has been a subsequent effort to combat the effects of that Russian propaganda.

Mr. MacLaren: Is it not quite clear to students of the Spanish situation that the success of the Russian propaganda was due to the fact that there was so much poverty and misery among the Spanish people?

Mr. Donner: That does not alter the fact of intervention. The intention was there from 1917. It was stated publicly at the time of the Russian revolution. If you


had a Communist Russia at one end of Europe and a Communist Spain at the other, the rest of Europe would become like a nut in a nut-cracker. You may agree, or disagree, but that was the plan. I deplore the innuendo that has been made in certain quarters that there is some form of conflict of interest in Spain as between Italy and ourselves. Since the gentleman's agreement between us and Italy has been signed, it is plain that there is room in the Mediterranean for both Italy and ourselves and that this position has been recognised by both. It is suggested that Mussolini is fortifying certain ports in the Red Sea in the belief that the keys to the Mediterranean lie in the Red Sea. Lord Lloyd has pointed out that the keys of the Mediterranean have never lain in the Red Sea and do not lie there now. The key to the Mediterranean lies in Portsmouth Harbour. Few will deny that Mussolini is a realist. Remembering the geographical position of Italy and its long undefended coast line he is surely the last statesman in the world to challenge the life-line of the British Empire, our communications with the Far East. If in more peaceful times hon. Members went to Spain and saw a bull fight, they will remember that the moment when the matador plunged his sword into the heart of the bull and killed it, that moment in the language of Spain is known as the moment of truth. The moment of truth is the moment of death. We see civil war raging in Spain to-day, which is indeed the moment of truth, where every man and woman faces it. I have noticed that, whenever the Foreign Secretary refers to civilians in Spain, he refers to them as being distinct from purely military forces. Civilians, so-called, have not been referred to with that distinction by many hon. Members. We have read in certain newspapers of aeroplanes machine-gunning civilians running away from the city of Guernica and escaping in the fields. But this is a civil war, and in a civil war no uniforms are worn and there are no neutrals. Every man, woman and child supports either one side or the other. If it is true that aeroplanes bombed civilians, I should be the last to deny that it is horrible. If it is true that they bombed people running away in fields, how can you or I or anybody tell whether these people were, in fact, civilians, or whether they were not

armed, or, in fact, taking part in the defence of Guernica? It is quite impossible to tell, and that is the tragedy and the horror of civil war, because there are no civilians and there are no neutrals. Families are divided, brother fignts against brother, and no one knows who is friend and who is enemy. That is the horror of civil war. Those of us who sit on this side of the House and speak with such depth of feeling with regard to the people who fight and work for Communism do so because we know that the ultimate and final result must be the misery and suffering of the people. It is for that reason that we oppose the vile doctrine of Communism with all our strength.
The bombing of Guernica, if it is true—and I say "if," because there is contradictory and unreliable evidence—everybody will agree, is a most lamentable and horrible thing. But is it true? As I came into this House this afternoon, I was given, not by some agent of General Franco, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) might say, but by a colleague in this House, a document, which contains the findings of the foreign journalists' investigation. It states that they were taken by officers of General Mola's headquarters staff to Guernica, and that
They were able to verify the fact that none of the panels of the walls still standing bore any traces of bombing, while all the windows were encircled with traces of flames.
They were able to show that the burning of the town had been a voluntary act. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may disagree with my opinions, but it is futile to say that these things are not stated here.
The attention of the journalists was likewise invited to the fact that places, where the fire did not take hold, especially in houses built of reinforced concrete, had been soused with spirit; and they were able to see, inside houses still intact, traces of flames which must have been caused by petrol, as the smoke had deposited a very thick soot on the walls.

Mr. MacLaren: Did they do it to get the insurance money?

Mr. Donner: All I suggest is that there is really insufficient evidence to show what took place.

Mr. Gallacher: Shame on you.

Mr. Donner: If the hon. Member will produce his evidence on the Floor of this


House later in the afternoon, no doubt we will listen to him. I suggest that, as far as we know, there are factories—and I have a letter here which suggests that one is in the town, but I have no confirmation of the fact—which manufacture small arms in or around Guernica, and that it is not therefore an open town. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will look at an atlas they will immediately understand the strategic importance of this town. I believe that, if they try to regard the matter impartially, they must reach the conclusion that it is a legitimate military objective.

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Donner: Let me finish my argument and I will then answer the hon. Member. A letter appeared in the "Times" only a couple of days ago which referred to the bombing of Birmingham during the War, and stated that owing to the fact that armament works existed outside Birmingham we made no protest because apparently we did not regard the city as an open town. The protest I would like to express, and then I will give way to the hon. Member, is the partial selection of facts by hon. Members opposite. While we all share the sense of horror at what has taken place at Guernica, assuming the stories are true, why should nothing be said of the fact that three open towns were bombed and bombarded by the forces of the Madrid Government, not only in the same week, but, I believe, on the very same day. These towns included Motril and two others. I believe that only yesterday Saragossa was bombed. I admit straightaway that I have never been to Saragossa and I have no knowledge of it and cannot say whether it is an open town or not. But I know that on 8th April Valladolid was bombed by an aeroplane disguised and camouflaged as a Nationalist aeroplane, and that a great many women and children were killed. If it was horrible to bomb Guernica, burn the city and machine-gun the inhabitants as they ran across the fields, was it not equally horrible, despicable and vile to bombard and to bomb Motril and two other towns on the same day, or at any rate in the same week. If hon. Members opposite wish to carry conviction, they must agree that equally terrible deeds occurred at the same time, and that the very things of which they complain are being done by the forces of the Government of Madrid.

Mr. W. Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman explain which argument he is using? Was Guernica burned by the Basques, or was it bombed because of the munition factories that were in it? He cannot have it both ways.

An Hon. Member: Neither can you.

Mr. Donner: My case is perfectly consistent and logical. The difficulty is that we do not know the facts. We have no reliable information of what happened at Guernica, but if German aeroplanes or aeroplanes belonging to General Franco did, in fact, bomb Guernica, we should not without an investigation immediately jump to the conclusion that it is an open town; and, in any case, we should not pass over in complete silence the things which happened the very same week and which deeds were committed by the forces of the Government of Senor Caballero. Much has been said also in the Press of the bombing of churches in Guernica. During the Great War churches were bombed, not only by the Germans and the French, but by ourselves, because church towers were used always as observation posts. These are the horrible things which take place in war, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it is particularly pernicious of General Franco alone to do these things. I believe that the reason why these things have been given so much publicity is, that the forces of the Madrid Government, and, in fact, the Government of Senor Caballero believe it necessary to produce propaganda and spread it throughout the whole world to counteract the effect of the appalling crimes which they have committed. This propaganda is put forward to make people forget what has taken place. It is to make people forget. To give a single instance, the broadcast which took place from Moscow on 19th August last, which instructed the Government of Senor Caballero and the Madrid Government to "kill all priests."

Mr. Gallacher: That is a lie.

Mr. Donner: If the only Communist Member in this House thinks that that is justifiable, then that alone explains why he has no colleagues beside him.

Mr. Gallacher: I say that it is a deliberate and a calculated lie.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not make an accusation of that kind against another hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member stated that a great deal of talk came over the air from Moscow instructing the Spanish Government to kill all priests. If I used the wrong language in addressing the hon. Member, I wish to say that I would stake my life on stating that there never was such a message.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member, at any rate, will withdraw his accusation against the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) of a deliberate lie.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You and your predecessors in the Chair have ruled that it is not in order to say that any Member of this House is telling a lie. I understand that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is not making that statement. He is making the statement that this repeated story is a lie, and I put it to you that he is in order in so doing.

Mr. Speaker: What I asked the hon. Member was that, if he accused the hon. Member of a deliberate lie, he should withdraw it.

Mr. Gallacher: This sort of story, and especially this story, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) says, has been pedalled time and time again. I say that that story is a deliberate and a calculated lie, and I could give the sources of that lie if it were necessary.

Mr. Speaker: I am assuming that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) does not accuse the hon. Member of a deliberate lie.

Mr. Gallacher: You are quite right in assuming.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) has referred to the actions of a friendly Power in a defamatory manner, and may I ask you whether that is in order in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say that it is out of order; it is very often done in this House.

Mr. Donner: However much we may differ with regard to our opinions, there can be no object in denying the facts. The broadcast from Moscow on 19th August was not only heard by millions of people, but it was published in the Press of the world.

Mr. Gallacher: I have explained to the House that I could give the source of that story. That story is a lie, and if the hon. Member persists in repeating it, I shall have to adopt a certain attitude.

Mr. Donner: If the hon. Member has any evidence to show that millions did not listen to the particular broadcast he had better place it at the disposal of the House in the course of the Debate.

Mr. Cocks: Did the hon. Member listen to it himself?

Mr. Donner: No, I did not, but that is neither here nor there.

Mr. Gallacher: I ask the hon. Member whether he can produce any of these millions who listened to that broadcast from Moscow instructing the Spanish Government to kill all priests?

Mr. Donner: I have not the newspapers of the time with me, but if the hon. Member wants evidence, I would draw his attention to the book called "Spanish Journey," by Tennant, in which it is specifically mentioned.

Mr. Gallacher: Bring these people here.

Mr. Donner: If my memory does not fail me, protests were made in several countries. I hope that hon. Members, whatever views they may hold, will not persist in propaganda against the Nationalist cause which can be called unfair. I believe that General Franco will win, and there is a danger that the future good relations between this country and Spain will be jeopardised. I believe that General Franco's victory will take place very much earlier than a great many people think, if only because behind the lines of Senor Caballero's militiamen there must be growing distress and growing discontent with the mob rule which exists. Take the position in Catalonia and Barcelona. People have said: "General Franco may win in the rest of Spain, but when you come to Catalonia


and Barcelona it will be quite a different story." On the contrary, the people of Barcelona are sick of the present misrule, and are sick and tired of a position where, if people are not killing or fighting each other they are sitting in the cinema and refusing to work. They may well accept with relief administration by a Government with which even they are out of sympathy.
I would ask the Foreign Secretary whether he could make a statement to the House concerning the question of the extent of Spanish territorial waters. I believe that during the American Civil War belligerent rights were extended to both sides, and I think I am right in saying, although I am not sure, that we also agreed to the request to etxend the three-mile limit to 10 or 12 miles at that time. If we insist upon the maintenance of the three-mile limit, we are insisting upon a limit which is not only old but which is archaic, since the range of modern guns has very much increased. We have only to look at certain newspapers in other countries to-day to find that we are accused of a lack of good faith. We are accused of being blockade-breakers, because they say that while we are, quite rightly, escorting and convoying our own ships on the high seas up to the three-mile limit, we are escorting those ships within range of the guns of Bilbao. Therefore, would it be possible for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement as to the position which exists, and could he say whether or not it would be possible to extend the three-mile limit, or, alternatively, to extend belligerent rights to both sides, as I believe the Government may yet have to do some day? In conclusion, while supporting the policy of non-intervention, may I, without impertinence, express my sympathy with the Foreign Secretary in his very difficult task, which has at no time been made more easy for him by His Majesty's Opposition.

4.18 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I am glad that the hon. Member has made such a speech. I suppose that we can regard that speech as the Fascist case, the case for Franco put in this House. If the supporters of Fascism and of Franco are proud of that curious collection of contradictions, and of, utterly fantastic statements, and if that is the best that General Franco's friends can do, they are welcome to it.

Mr. Donner: The hon. Lady is at liberty to say what she likes about my speech, but I may tell her that I am so little a Fascist that I am being attacked by Fascists in my own constituency.

Miss Wilkinson: I am not responsible for what the English Fascists do, but I am assuming that that sort of case which the hon. Member has made is the sort of case which no presumably reasonable and fair-minded men could possibly expect us to accept. There is one remark of the hon. Member with which I agree. He said that this is not only a Fascist and Communist fight in Spain, but that we have to remember the condition of the people of Spain for the last too years. That is true, and it is also tremendously true, as he said, that in Spain the point of death is the point of truth. To tens of thousands of oppressed workers and peasants in Spain this civil war is just that. It is the point of truth. The grandees and the big landlords of Spain have been known for long as being the rottenest set of landlords there are in Europe. They are absentee landlords, men who have wasted their substance in the bars and casinos of Biarritz and Monte Carlo. They leave their land to be farmed out by caciques, and we know what that means. If ever there was a day of reckoning at the point of death it is the reckoning that the grandees of Spain have deserved, and it is happening now. General Franco knows that, and he knows that though he holds those districts of Spain that are in his hands to-day he cannot keep them unless he shoots practically every able-bodied man behind the lines, except those who are willing to join his army.

Mr. Donner: Does the hon. Member suggest that the human failings of individual persons justify murder?

Miss Wilkinson: I am not talking of individual failings. I am talking of the deliberate military policy of General Franco. I can refer the hon. Member not to something that the "Daily Worker" says, but to an article written by a Conservative, which appeared in a rather pro-Fascist journal, the "Evening Standard," in which he pointed out that:
It was a mistake to say that 15,000 working men had been shot at Corunna; General Franco had admitted that only 10,000 workmen had been shot there.


That has been the deliberate military policy, and it is to-day the deliberate military policy of Franco, because he knows that he is really fighting the people of Spain. The question about the priests and so on falls into insignificance compared with such a slaughter as that. The Spanish people are really at the point of truth, and they are determined to sweep away the results of centuries after centuries of tyranny.
It was an awful humiliation for the deputation that went to Spain to have to realise the changed attitude in Spain to this country. Britain had been looked upon as the leader, almost the prototype, of democracy. The Spanish people realised that when we had sent volunteers to Spain we had sent them on the side of the people almost exactly 100 years ago. What they could not understand was not the idea of non-intervention, but that non-intervention should be used by this country in such a way as to form the most effective weapon that General Franco had. [HON. MEMBERS: "General Franco has also objected!"] I have not noticed that General Franco has asked for anything except more of the kind of thing that he is getting. The letter that has been read from the Marquis del Moral shows that he had applied for more neutrality on the same lines. This non-intervention has given aid to General Franco. If non-intervention were worked as non-intervention we would not object to it, but the Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well that this non-intervention has worked on the side of General Franco.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): indicated dissent.

Miss Wilkinson: Let me put a few points to the right hon. Gentleman. Franco got the Army, or most of it, but one advantage which the Spanish Government had, although it was bereft of the means of obtaining order, was that as the legal Government of Spain it had control of the finances of the country. It was expected that Franco was going to get control of Spain in 48 hours. In that he failed. Then Germany and Italy promised to supply him with everything he wanted until December. Almost the next day France and Britain came forward with the declaration of non-inter-

vention. By that declaration they cut through and made nugatory the one advantage that the Government of Spain possessed, namely, that they had control of the national finances, and therefore had the power and in international law the right to buy arms. The Non-Intervention Committee neutralised that one advantage. That is why I say that this country came to the aid of General Franco. I have been among the soldiers and the young officers. [Interruption.] Really, the sense of humour in this House becomes almost indecent. It is offensive.

Mr. Denville: No offence is meant on this side of the House.

Mr. Gallacher: Their humour is as smutty as their politics.

Miss Wilkinson: These people whom you call murderers had built up their army from among the workers. Then came the Russian tanks and the Russian aeroplanes. That was making all the difference to them. It means such a lot when you can see aeroplanes on your own side, when you are being bombed from the other side. Therefore, they were very grateful to the Russians. They had built up their army almost from the ground, and one big advantage was the Russian aeroplane. It gave them the one way of protecting their women and children from the awful air raids that had been taking place before the Russian aeroplanes came. Almost immediately came the second act of the Non-Intervention Committee, when again the Non-Intervention Committee came to the aid of Franco. The Foreign Secretary knows that I am not accusing him in any personal sense. What I am trying to put is how it seems to the men who are doing the fighting. The Germans and the Italians are within a night's flight of Spain. Thirty-six Junker aeroplanes arrived three days before our deputation got there, and they went to the north. The Russian aeroplanes have to come in by sea. Let us be perfectly frank about it. It is ridiculous to deny facts. The Russian aeroplanes had previously been able to use Czechoslovakia as a half way house. That is not possible now for the Russian aeroplanes. Whereas the aeroplanes from Italy and Germany can fly into Spain, the aeroplanes from other countries have to go by sea, and they


have to pass through the German and Italian ships that are there in the name of the control scheme.
By what logic we can justify putting German and Italian ships. which have overwhelmingly intervened on the side of Franco throughout, in control of the Government coast of Spain I have never been able to understand. The case as has been put to us on behalf of the Nonintervention Committee is that they have no power to stop ships but only power to observe. But all the English ships have been withdrawn from the Spanish East Coast. German and Italian warships on which there is no observer can bring in what they like and are also in a position, if they observe any neutral ship, to signal to the rebel fleet and thus put an absolute blockade on the Government coast. That is how it works, and how it was put to me by the gentleman in charge of the defences on the East Coast of Spain. If the Foreign Secretary can reassure the Spanish Government on that point, well and good. German and Italian warships are openly on the side of Franco and they will work the nonintervention scheme so that he will continue to get all he wants, while on the North Coast this country will be perfectly correct in its interpretation of the Non-Intervention Agreement.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. County Councils Association Expenses (Amendment) Act, 1937.
2. Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937.
3. Local Government (Financial Pro-visions) (Scotland) Act, 1937.
4. Maternity Services (Scotland) Act, 1937.
5. Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937.
6. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Earsdon Joint Hospital District) Act, 1937.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Nottinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Act, 1937.

8. General Cemetery Act, 1937.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure, 1937.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Orders of the Day — SPAIN.

4.45 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I do not want to keep the House for more than a minute or so because I know there are other matters to be raised. May I bring my remarks to a logical conclusion by saying that I believe the time has gone by when we can still go on under the assumption that things will somehow or other settle themselves. I feel that the situation is now such that things are not going to settle themselves until there has been a great deal more human misery. It seems to me that Guernica cannot be considered separately, for it follows logically as a plan of campaign. The north coast of Spain is the centre of the heavy industry of the country, and it is from there that they get most of their home-produced munitions. Whoever controls the north coast of Spain controls the munitions industry, the iron mines and the coal mines. Consequently, it cannot be said that Guernica is an isolated thing. Durango, Guernica, Eibar, Bilbao—I know the country pretty well and have motored all over it, and I know that that is the logical sequence towards the control of Bilbao.
The large accumulation there of aeroplanes and military stores makes it clear that probably within the next week or so we shall witness a terrific attempt to take Bilbao. I do not intend at this moment to be in the least sentimental, and I will pass over the whole of the hon. Member's cold-blooded assertion that people get killed in civil wars, and that is that. But are we going to see that accumulation of German and Italian aeroplanes continue within striking distance of Bilbao, are we going to see Bilbao razed to the ground, and yet refuse to the Spanish Government the right to buy aeroplanes to meet the


situation? I do not say that we want to sell them any aeroplanes, for that is not the point; the point is whether we are going to refuse them the right to buy aeroplanes.
On the morning after Guernica, the leader in the "Times" newspaper, which was I think about the meanest piece of journalism that has been produced recently—I hope they will note that fact—after regretting what happened at Guernica, interpolated a few sentences to say that, of course, the extremist Government of Madrid would not be anxious to help the Basques, implying that they had not shot prisoners and priests and so on, and that that was why the Madrid Government would not send aeroplanes. The "Times," not as a newspaper but as representing the vast amount of opinion on the other side of the House, after refusing to allow the legal Government of Spain to buy aeroplanes, sneers at it because it cannot send aeroplanes away from its beleaguered capital, and has not been able to send help to Bilbao. As a matter of fact, the Madrid Government is trying to do so at very great peril to Madrid.
I feel that this is a situation which, before we come back after the Recess, may develop into something extremely serious. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether, with all this concentration by the Powers which have sent this stuff in since they promised not to do so—the diary of a young airman who crashed in France proved conclusively that he had left Germany since the time of the Non-Intervention Agreement—we can shut our eyes to what is going on and say, using that delightful formula of the Foreign Office, "We have no information." The facts are there, and the world knows them; and to do General Franco justice, he does not seem to take great pains to hide the facts. Are we going to say to the Spanish Government: "No intervention; you shall not have the right to buy arms to defend yourselves"; and then to have our leading newspapers sneering at them because they have not enough planes to defend their people. That is not a very pleasant thing for the people of this country, which is supposed to be a democratic country, to know; and there is only one consolation; it is that when we have done mean things such as that, they will come back on us,

and the British people will pay, and pay heavily, for what their Government have done to poor little Spain.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: In all parts of the House there will be recognition of the great sincerity and force with which the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has put the case in which she so profoundly believes, and if I differ from her emphatically in my conclusions regarding the non-intervention policy, I would at the beginning like to pay a tribute to and express my recognition of her complete sincerity in the cause which she has at heart. It may seem strange that we should be having a third Debate on Spain within so short a period, and I think that if we were to have such a Debate it could not have been introduced in a speech of happier tone than that employed by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). I noticed in the course of that speech from the Front Opposition Bench that it did not express a complete rejection, or indeed any rejection, of the policy of non-intervention. Nevertheless, every remark made throughout the Debate which has drawn any applause from the Labour Opposition has been a remark repudiating non-intervention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear," and that proves that I am right in that statement.
I was very much astonished that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) should have complained that he did not know the policy of the Government as to the use of British armaments. If that statement ever had any force, it has had none whatever since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made his speech at Leamington, which has been so often quoted in the House, in which he stated exactly the circumstances in which British arms would be used and the circumstances in which British arms might be used. That being the case, it is quite idle for hon. Members to say that they do not know what is the policy of His Majesty's Government. What we do not know is where the two Oppositions stand on this policy of non-intervention. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton condemned it, and the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow did the same. If I support the policy of nonintervention it is not because I favour either side in Spain, but because I believe


that in the interest of our own people, whom it is our primary duty to consider, the Government's policy of non-intervention, with all its disadvantages—and it has some—is the right one. If hon. Members will recall the recent Debates, they will recollect the difficulty which occurred and may occur again in the position of shipping approaching Bilbao.
I listened throughout those Debates in an endeavour to find out what was the cause of the Opposition's complaint against the Government, and there seemed to be three propositions, one or more of which occurred in all the Opposition speeches. The first was that there was no danger to shipping approaching Bilbao; the second was that it was the duty of the Government to remove the danger; and the third was that the Government ought not to have told British shipping about the danger. How well those propositions fit together, the House may form its own conclusion. As to the first proposition, that there is no danger, that is a question of fact, and I think the British people would prefer the view of the Naval authorities on the spot to chance remarks by different hon. Gentlement opposite, even on the Front Opposition Bench. British shipping, of course, can believe which it likes. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has!"] I am delighted to have the agreement of both Oppositions. There will at any rate on that score be no further complaint against the Government. The Government gives the opinion of the Naval authorities on the spot, and British shipping can accept whichever opinion it likes, but the danger from mines in the neighbourhood seems to have been rather confirmed by the fact that General Franco's chief ship has been sunk by them.
As to whether the Government ought to have warned shipping of the dangers, the complaints of hon. Members opposite are so fantastic that I do not think it is worth making any serious attempt to argue them. If the danger was there, there was an obvious duty to warn. I come now to the third point made in those Debates, that it is the duty of the British Government to remove the dangers. In contrast to the two previous points, that is at least a policy. It is not the policy of His Majesty's Government, and until recently it was not the policy of His

Majesty's Opposition, although I am well aware that half of the Opposition may have wavered on that point. I well remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in moving the official resolution at the Edinburgh Conference, spoke in favour of non-intervention, which he described as the policy initiated by the French Government and supported by the British and Russian Governments. He also pointed out—and this may still be true in spite of what the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow said—that the only effect of withdrawing that policy would be enormously to load the scales against the Spanish Government. If the hon. Lady has forgotten the passage, this is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
I can assure you—you know in your hearts yourselves—that if there is to be freedom to send arms into Spain, Germany and Italy will send 50 guns and 50 aeroplanes for every one that goes from other countries. [A cry of 'No' from the Conference] "—
and the right hon. Gentleman said:
This is a matter on which I have perhaps a little more knowledge than certain members of this Conference.
Let us assume that we did seek to sweep the mines and sent mine-sweepers, under the protection of our Navy, to remove the dangers of any blockade. Anyone who thinks on the matter for a moment cannot doubt that whatever other effect such an action would have, the Non-Intervention Agreement would come speedily to an end and the Non-Intervention Committee would break up. I am aware that there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who would welcome that. That is a tenable policy. What is not tenable is to advocate that, unless you advocate the ending of non-intervention. I think we are entitled to know from the Front Opposition Bench whether even to-day they would end the Non-Intervention Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is constantly faced by two entirely inconsistent demands from the Opposition. The first is to use the Non-Intervention Committee for this, that and the other thing, and the second is to take action which would bring the Non-Intervention Committee to an end. We are entitled to know where both the Oppositions stand. Admittedly there are very difficult matters involved in the nonintervention policy.
According to the ordinary methods practised in all previous wars, we should long ago have recognised belligerent rights in both combatants. We may still have to do that. I have no doubt that the Government had weighty reasons against that course. I believe that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that one can recognise belligerent rights in one side and not in the other. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] The reason is very simple: One of the few unilateral things that cannot exist is a unilateral war. If the hon. Member who said "Why not?" will look in a dictionary, he will see that "belligerent" means carrying on a war, and one of the facts about war is that there must be at least two sides. It is elementary common sense and international law that if one concedes belligerent rights to one side, one must concede them to the other side. It is too elementary to be argued. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be funny!"] The hon. Member had better address that remark to the hon. Member who asked "Why not?" It is not I who am trying to be funny.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The hon. Member could not be.

Mr. Strauss: I am not at all distressed when the hon. Member says that I could not be, because I was not endeavouring to be funny; but perhaps he can be and is inevitably, whether he wishes to be or not. What follows if you have a nonintervention agreement and do not recognise belligerent rights? First, you cannot recognise a de jure blockade enforced on the high seas by either party. Secondly, you must treat a de facto blockade in the same way whichever party imposes it. A de facto blockade if and when established by General Franco will, therefore, be treated just as a de facto blockade was treated when it was established by the other side last autumn. I believe much might be gained by a recognition of belligerent rights and I think the Government may have to consider it in the near future, but I realise that there may be weighty reasons which may operate against it.
Let me say two things about that. First, it is utterly untrue to suggest that by recognising belligerent rights you are recognising that the rebels are in the right in the war. Such recognition does

not prejudge that question at all. Any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who studies the precedents and knows anything about international law, knows that such a question would not be in any way prejudged. Secondly, I suggest to the Government that, if they do come to the conclusion that belligerent rights should be recognised, they should not be alarmed by any outcry from the Left. The outcry from the Left is so invariably inconsistent that it is negligible. I had the pleasure on Saturday last, which was May Day, of listening to the speeches delivered from numerous platforms of the United Front in Hyde Park which dealt with Spain among other subjects. [HON. MEMBERS: "The pleasure? "] Yes, it was a great pleasure. There are few things from which I derived more encouragement than what happened in Hyde Park on that occasion. From all those platforms, save one, I heard passionate defences of democracy. From the remaining platform, a middle-aged gentleman under the banner of the Anarchists was denouncing democracy. The crowd strayed from one to the other and greeted all with equal enthusiasm. It was a fine afternoon, and all enjoyed themselves.
There are other topics in connection with this question with which I should like to deal, but I do not propose to develop them on this occasion. I think that the Government, when faced with the sort of criticism that has come from the Labour and Liberal benches to-day, can derive considerable encouragement from what happened on the last occasion when a Vote of Censure was moved against them on this very question of Spain. An extremely effective speech was delivered on that occasion by the Leader of the Opposition, but he will forgive me if I say that for virulence of criticism of the Government he was easily surpassed by the right hon. and bellicose Baronet who leads the Whig party. If the Leader of the Opposition chastised the Government with whips, the right hon. Baronet chastised them with scorpions, and those who had read the Liberal Press that morning knew that it was expected that at last the Popular Front would appear in the Division Lobby. But so shattered had the Opposition case been in the course of the Debate that when the Division came, a scene of indescribable indiscipline was


to be observed on the Liberal benches, and that was the more astonishing in a party composed almost exclusively of Whips. It was quite obvious that if hon. Members were permitted to go into the Division Lobbies, one-third would vote with the Opposition and one-third with the Government and not less than two showed signs of being in danger of going through the ceiling. But the right hon. Baronet exercising all his authority was able to persuade all but one of them to go home, and that one voted with the Government.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: On that occasion we were given an undertaking by the Foreign Secretary which had considerable influence on us, and which in subsequent days did not appear to be observed.

Mr. Strauss: That undertaking caused no astonishment to anybody except to hon. Members on those benches who wished for an excuse for altering their decision. It was in exact accordance with every declaration made by the Government previously. I believe that I express the view of the whole House when I say that I hope that the right hon. Baronet may on some future occasion be able to lead the whole of his party into the same Lobby, marching in good order and taking their step carefully from the extreme left.
The policy of non-intervention inevitably has difficulties. I have no doubt that it has been broken in various respects and may be broken again. But in the absence of that policy, foreign intervenetion in Spain would be enormously increased and the risk of the Spanish conflagration becoming a European conflagration would become imminent. In those circumstances I think it a pity that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman should speak from sympathy either for the Spanish Government or for General Franco. If they must, let them sympathise with the one or the other, but for us the interests of this country are infinitely greater than the interests of either of the combatants in Spain, and the interests of this country are in the preservation of peace. I believe that this policy, with all its difficulties, has pre-served the peace of Europe. I hope my right hon. Friend will persist in it, and I should like him to know that in doing so he will have the overwhelming support of this House and of the country.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd George: We have had one of the most interesting Debates I have heard in this House, in the course of which, if I may say so as an old Member, some very striking speeches have been delivered on both sides. But I do not propose to intervene to carry on the general discussion. I rise merely to ask the Foreign Secretary a couple of questions before he replies on the Debate. On the question of non-intervention, I do not propose to express any opinion. I am going to act on the assumption that that is the policy of the Government, and that the House has supported that policy up to the present. With regard to the merits of the controversy in Spain, while it is interesting to hear debate upon it, I do not think we have any time to develop that very interesting theme. The two questions which I wish to put to the Foreign Secretary are very important, especially as we are about to separate for a fortnight or more.
The first question is with regard to non-intervention. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will say that nonintervention has been as great a success as he anticipated. I am not blaming anybody in particular now—it would be idle to enter into the question of responsibility—but for the moment, there is no doubt, we must admit that it has been a tragic mockery. There are gigantic forces on one side and very powerful forces on the other side, all introduced from foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in securing a second pact, and he has organised measures which he hopes will ensure that the pact of non-intervention will now be respected and, if necessary, enforced. Since that pact was signed, there has been a good deal of information to the effect that the Germans and the Italians have sent very powerful reinforcements to Franco's forces in Spain. We have had a good many reports in the British Press, of all parties, that planes have been seen crossing France on their way to Spain. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information that, since Germany and Italy signed that pact, they have sent fresh contingents of aeroplanes to Spain. If so, what steps do the Government propose to take to protest, and protest effectively, against that breach of an arrangement which has


only been made within the last few weeks?
The second question is this: The right hon. Gentleman has used language—and I have been very glad to read it in the papers—in which he makes it quite clear that he deprecates the bombing of open towns. It is no use quoting the precedent of Birmingham. Birmingham was a considerable arsenal and a source of supply to us during the War. There were the Birmingham Small Arms and there were a great many other manufactures which were essential to us in the course of the War, so that in that case Birmingham was not an open town. But there is no doubt at all that there has been bombing of open towns. The evidence is not evidence that has come from the Left. There is evidence which has come in a very remarkable contribution to the "Times" to-day, from their correspondent in Bilbao, quoting one of the most respected priests in Bilbao upon the subject. If that proceeds—and there is some indication that an attack of that kind is about to be repeated—what steps do the Government propose to take to enter an effective protest here again against the repetition of the horrors of Guernica?
I should very much like to get some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to what the intentions of the Government are. It is no use saying that the policy of non-intervention is a good one. Let us assume that it is, but unless it is enforced, it is worse than worthless. Up to the present there is no doubt at all that the parties have departed from the pact into which they have entered, with the exception of ourselves. I believe that, as far as Britain is concerned, as usual, she has kept faith, but I am afraid that that is not applicable to the other parties. The question is, What do we propose to do with regard to this second pact? Do we mean to make it quite clear that not only shall we take cognisance of any breach of this second pact, but that we shall have to take some kind of action in regard to it and that we shall have to reconsider the whole of our attitude towards non-intervention if Germany and Italy persist in breaking their bond? The second question is, What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do if this bombing of open towns and these horrors continue?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I had undertaken to sit down at 10 minutes past 5, and I am now, therefore, in a somewhat embarrassing position. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not answer the questions that have been put to me, as I wish to bring the Debate back to the lines laid down in the powerful speech which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). Happily, the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has indeed very largely done that. We, like him, are interested this afternoon in two questions—the destruction of Guernica, and the violation of the Non-Intervention Agreements, both that of 28th August and that of 20th February, which we believe still to be continued. We are going to press the Government that they will speak the truth, declare it if they know it, and use every means to find it out if they do not, demand that the obligations accepted by different nations shall be carried out, and, above all, that they will press for the early evacuation of the foreign troops which are in Spain.
I confess that we approach this matter with certain misgivings about the attitude of His Majesty's Government. We have had proof that the Government are only too ready to believe what is convenient at the moment, to reject everything else as unconfirmed, and to end up with the conclusion that both sides are to blame. If the Foreign Secretary this afternoon were to repeat the speech which was made on behalf of the Government in another place last week, we should regard that as a very grave happening indeed. For, in respect of Guernica, we say that it is not enough to make an appeal to both sides in the Spanish war to "humanise" their conduct. This event at Guernica is not like anything that has ever happened before. Franco has never elsewhere bombed civilians, and the Government has not bombed any open towns, as Guernica was bombed. We have the evidence in that classic report in the "Times," which has been quoted so often in this House to-day, that the whole town of 7,000 inhabitants was "slowly and systematically pounded to pieces," in accordance with a strategic plan which had been very carefully prepared. We say that that is by far the worst atrocity that has happened; that, as a precedent, it is extremely dangerous


to us and to the world; that, if it is not followed by effective action now, then we may expect the destruction of Bilbao by the same means; that such methods will become to be regarded as an accepted practice, which all to probably would be the starting point for the next war, and that in the first week of hostilities, if another war should ever unhappily break out, we should see repeated on a grand scale what a few dozen German aircraft did at Guernica.
We believe that the case in regard to Guernica has been absolutely proved. We have the evidence of countless eye-witnesses, and we have the rebel case itself. They said, on 29th April, that no aeroplanes were able to go up on the day of the bombardment, because on that day there was fog over their aerodrome; in a longer explanation, the next day, the fog had blown away, but the aeroplanes had still not risen from the ground; on 4th May there had been some bombs which had fallen before the fatal day; and, lastly, in the explanation given, I think it was, yesterday morning, we find them saying that there was some intermittent bombing during a period of three hours. As against this self-contradictory defence, we have the evidence of the Mayor of Guernica, a Catholic priest, who broadcast his own experiences; we have the evidence of another Catholic priest who broadcast again last night; we have the evidence of a high Catholic dignitary, the Dean of the Cathedral of Valladolid, who said that he arrived at 4.40 and left at 7.45, that between those times the sky was black with. German aeroplanes, and that they came down to a height of 200 metres to machine-gun the civilian population.
We have the evidence of British eyewitnesses. The first account published in this country was by the reporter of the "Star," who watched it with his own eyes from beginning to end from a neighbouring hill, and who heard the screams of the people. We have the evidence of the "Times" correspondent, who was himself machine-gunned in a neighbouring village by the German Air Force as they came back. We have his article this morning which completely destroys the fabricated case which has been put up by the rebel leaders. We have the still more sinister evidence that some authorities of the German Government were privy to the plan. I hope,

indeed, that these reports will turn out to be false, for I hope the name of the German Government will be cleared, if it can be. But there is the report of a speech by General Goering, which was made the day before the atrocity occurred, and in which he said:
In a short time the Spanish War will prove Germany's aviation strength.
We have, much more sinister still, the article written to the "Frankfurter Zeitung" by their correspondent in Northern Spain three days before the bombardment took place, when he said that 12 or 15 dozen bombers had been concentrated in Viscaya, with only a dozen Rer aeroplanes to oppose them. He says they could fly over the whole Basque country undisturbed. He goes on to describe in detail this new technique of demoralising "the unprotected Reds" by bombarding them first and then firing down on them with machine guns. That is what actually took place.
We believe the case has been proved, and if the Government have any doubt, let them accept the plea of the Basque authorities and the Spanish Government for an international inquiry on the spot. We will accept any kind of inquiry, but I do not much believe in an inquiry held at the Foreign Office by the diplomatic methods of the Non-Intervention Committee. Under that procedure, no report of any agent abroad can be published, because his position would be difficult afterwards; no Government will submit the information it receives, and every Government is thinking of its general relations to the rest. Let us have an inquiry by independent people. The Government could do it themselves if they would spend £100 and send three British judges to draw up a report. If they do not want to adopt that plan, will they not have a really impartial international inquiry? They can get it done at Geneva. The Spanish Government have promised to accept such an inquiry without limitations of any kind. General Quiepo de Llano, with his usual courtesy, has invited the Dean of Canterbury to come behind General Franco's lines. Perhaps he will also invite a commission of inquiry on this point. In any case, he who refuses that inquiry will stand self-condemned. We hope the inquiry will also extend to the violations of the Non-Intervention Agreement.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Would the hon. Gentleman also include Irun, which, an almost similar case, was burned to the ground?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Irun had been the scene of desperate front line fighting for a period of weeks, and there is no proof that it was burned by the defenders; but if it had been, that is a normal method of defence which the Russians used at Moscow to defeat Napoleon many years ago. The case of Irun is in no way parallel.

Sir H. Croft: Would the hon. Gentleman refuse an inquiry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, of course I would not, and I would not be afraid of the result. May I now summarise the evidence, which we think amounts to proof, in regard to the violation of the Non-Intervention Agreement? There is the interview that various British journalists have had in private with an Italian prisoner, who said he belonged to the 92nd Regiment of Infantry of the regular Italian Army, that he was mobilised, that he was not a volunteer—"I am a soldier under orders," he said—and that he left Naples on 27th February, a week after the so-called "Volunteer" agreement came into force. There was the evidence of Major Lucianio given to Lady Hastings, and also, in private and without any pressure, to the correspondent of the "Times," in which the major said he belonged to the Littorio Division, a regular division, of the Italian Army; that altogether there were 40,000 Italian troops in Spain; that they were equipped with Italian uniforms, and that they came as Italian units and not as units of General Franco's army. There is a British observer at Bilbao from whom I have a telegram—the Foreign Secretary knows who he is, and that he is a person worthy of credence—who said that German pilots had told him spontaneously and in private that all the pilots and nearly all the crews of the aircraft on the Bilbao front were German. There is the evidence of the "Daily Telegraph," which, I think, hon. Members opposite will accept. Their correspondent in Bilbao on 19th April saw the diary of a German pilot who had been shot down, by name Hans Sobotka. His passport was also there. These documents prove that he had left Berlin

on 5th April, arrived at Rome the night of the same day, arrived at Seville on 6th April, left for the front, and carried out a large number of bombardments on behalf of Franco.
We say that that is proof; and we ask the right hon. Gentleman if he still doubts it, to set up an international inquiry that will establish the truth; we ask him then fearlessly to declare the truth to the world; we ask him to call on the Governments of the world to stand together for the maintenance of international obligations; we ask him to bring this whole matter to an end by taking effective action to secure the rapid evacuation of foreign troops. I sometimes think that the Government have almost forgotten the meaning of international law. A little while ago the Admiralty threw away our old doctrine of effective blockade and our doctrine about mine-laying; the Board of Trade seem to care nothing about the rights of neutral shipping; and the Foreign Office seem all too ready to accept excuses about the violations of non-intervention of the Covenant, and of the Kellogg Pact. We ask them to stand on the law. We believe that if they appeal to the nations of the world to support them in upholding international obligations which have been freely accepted, they will find that the immense majority of mankind will be behind them. Abyssinia proved that there is a juristic conscience of mankind which is still alive. We ask the Government to mobilise it, because we believe that if they do not, Guernica will not only be a tragedy in itself, but that it will be but a pale forecast of horrors to come.

5.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have listened throughout this Debate to every speech made, and I should like to say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who speaks with much greater experience than mine, when he said that he thought the speeches were some of the best he had heard in Debate for some time past. Although in the course of this Debate and from time to time there appears a certain bitterness on one side or the other, I feel sure that the House will appreciate the difficulties of a Foreign Secretary who has to deal


with a situation such as we have in Spain at the present time.
Before I deal with the main subject of the Debate, I would like to refer to a question put about non-intervention by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). I do not think that I am unduly sensitive to criticism, but I did somewhat resent the comment which the hon. Gentleman made and which I must frankly confess that I did not at all understand. In the course of the Debate on Bilbao I gave this House a very definite assurance, on behalf of the Government, that we would protect our ships going to the north coast of Spain up to the limit of territorial waters. That undertaking has been carried out corn-pi etely, and I do not know what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that it was an undertaking which we did not carry out.

Mr. K. Griffith: I have no wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish to make any imputation of bad faith, but we were attacked from the benches behind the Government on the ground of having abstained on that occasion, and I was merely explaining that the reason for that was an assurance which we had got from the right hon. Gentleman which we understood, and which I think everyone would have understood, to include the protection of our ships by convoy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Almost the next day we got an entirely different interpretation of that speech from another Member of the Government, and then afterwards the convoy was carried out. If the Government do not know their minds, why should hon. Members behind them accuse us?

Mr. Eden: I do not think the hon. Member's explanation is particularly convincing. What we undertook to do was to defend our ships, and we are defending them, and the method by which that is done may well be left to the Naval authorities—

Mr. K. Griffith: It is all-important.

Mr. Eden: —who, no doubt know how to do it just as well as the hon. Gentleman. Before turning to the subject-matter before us, I think that, in view of certain comments which have been made, the House may like to have the latest information at the disposal of the Gov-

ernment on the situation in Bareelona. On 4th May His Majesty's Consul-General reported that there was a grave disturbance of public order, and he requested the immediate dispatch of a warship, which arrived there from Valencia on the same day, that is, the 4th, and was reinforced yesterday by a second ship. On the evening of the 4th the Consul-General reported to us that the situation was very grave, that the British colony were dispersing, and that at that moment it would be inadvisable to try to land anyone from the ship. He added that the streets were barricaded and that fighting between Anarehists and police had been taking place all day and was still going on. Last night the Consul-General reported that the situation was still confused, that the fighting appeared to be heavy, and he feared that there had been a considerable death-roll. He is now in touch with His Majesty's ships in Bareelona. I am afraid that is all the information that I have, but it shows that there is a very anxious situation in that city at this time.

Mr. Lloyd George: Has the right hon. Gentleman any news of any agreement?

Mr. Eden: I have heard nothing from our Consul-General, but I would not say necessarily that it has not happened, because communications between him and the ships are not easy.

Mr. Emmott: Can the right hon. Gentleman state approximately the numbers in the British colony in Bareelona, and has he any information on the question whether there has been any loss of life in the colony?

Mr. Eden: I cannot. So far as I know there has been no loss of life. British ships are there to do what they can to help the British colony. Coming to the Debate, I have been asked to deal specifically with two aspects of the Spanish situation, and as I do not wish to detain the House long, it is on those two that I shall concentrate. There is, first, the issue at Guernica. It is perfectly true that this affair has stirred considerable depths of feeling in this country. It is not an isolated incident in the sense that it is the only example of the bombing of the civil population in Spain. Nobody pretends that there have not been other examples of it before, but it does seem, from the information which has come to us so far, a particularly deplorable


example of bombing and machine-gunning from the air. I should like not only this House—in this instance I am speaking to a rather wider audience—but other nations to understand that the feelings in this country on this matter are not due, as some of them appear to think, to a desire to put any other country in the dock, or to a desire to accuse any other country, but they are due to a belief, which is widely shared in this country, on the evidence at present available, that there has been an exceptionally severe air bombardment and machine-gunning. It is the knowledge that if that kind of thing is repeated and intensifies in a larger scale, it is going to mean a terrible future for Europe to face which has resulted in this expression of opinion. This opinion is not confined to this country at all, as some foreign nations think—not at all—but extends not only to the Dominions but, as I know, to the United States of America and elsewhere. The last thing which anybody in this country wants is to make use of this, as I believe, tragic happening for some unworthy political purpose. What we do want is to make of this event, if the event is of the nature that we think it is, an occasion for seeking to put a stop to the repetition of happenings which must have such tragic consequences in the future if allowed to be repeated.
That is the position. What is to be done about it? The hon. Gentleman said perfectly truly that the Spanish Government have asked, not for three British judges, I am thankful to say, which would be rather an embarrassing request, but for an international inquiry, and the question arises, Can such an inquiry be agreed to? So far as the Government are concerned, we should be glad to see such an inquiry take place. We say that, not because we want, as I repeat, to indict anybody, but if the facts are disputed—and it is clear that they are disputed in some quarters—then the only satisfactory solution is to have an inquiry which will establish the facts. As to the hon. Gentleman's belief that such an inquiry would be readily accepted and readily worked out, I am not perhaps as optimistic as he is, but in any event I believe that Europe, every nation in Europe, would be the gainer if we were to co-operate in trying to establish the

facts. I believe the best people for that purpose would not be any of the great Powers. I should like to see, perhaps, a number of nationals of small neutral States endeavour to carry out that task. We shall be doing that, not in an effort to pillory the past, but in an attempt to better the future.
I was asked about the position at Bilbao. The House is familiar with the request which was addressed to us. We were asked by the Basque Government to protect on the high seas ships evacuating non-combatants, old men, women, and children, who wished to leave Bilbao. I do not disguise from the House that we should much have preferred it if that evacuation had taken place by agreement between the two sides, but in any event the Government consider that they have nothing to apologise for in the action which they have undertaken in offering this measure of protection. I was asked whether that remains our position. It does. Protection on the high seas will be afforded should it be necessary, which I cannot conceive it should be, to these ships carrying women and children away from Bilbao. We claim that that action is perfectly consistent with what we have done hitherto in this strife. We have car-ried numbers of people in our ships. I have not attempted a computation, but I think it is probably true that we have evacuated or saved the lives of more supporters of General Franco than of the Government.

Mr. Grenfell: Did the Government not send their warships to Malaga with food and relief?

Mr. Eden: Yes, once to Malaga and once to Almeria, once to the insurgents and once to the Government, and we say that work of this kind, which is purely humanitarian, in such circumstances as then existed, cannot possibly be regarded as any form of intervention. Now I come to the criticism of the Non-Intervention Agreement. As I listened to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), I could not help feeling, much as I respect him, that in his heart of hearts he is an ardent interventionist, and that in some respects he is like the fifth column of the Spanish insurgents.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am merely trying to explain what I believe to be the view of the great majority of my party. We hope that democracy will triumph over Fascism


that, having accepted the policy of nonintervention, it will be loyally carried out, and that, if it is, it will rapidly bring the civil war to an end. We protest with all our power against the sham, the hypocritical sham, that it now appears to be.

Mr. Eden: The position of the hon. Gentleman is quite an easy one to take up, seeing that he speaks from the other side. He makes no complaint that it is not our desire to carry out the obligations. We cannot contrive that all others are equally loyal. I admit the difficulty of which we have been conscious ever since this scheme began. That is why we sought by one means and another to try to improve the system, and finally, after endless labours, we arrived at this system of supervision. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though this system were sonic pet idea of the Government, but it is nothing of the kind. It has been elaborated by experts of all nations, and it has been endorsed by the French Government, the Russian Government, and the German Government; and all the Governments participating in this endeavour regard it as the best scheme that they have been able to work out in the circumstances.
I am sure that this scheme of control will stop the influx by foreign ships, of foreign volunteers, and of foreign arms to Spain. The hon. Gentleman says that that is not enough, but I would put this question: We have to face the alternative. This scheme has reduced and is reducing the volume of intervention in Spain, including the intervention of the inflow of materials from those who are willing to send them. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) thought that if we abolished the non-intervention scheme and if everybody were free to provide what they wished, the Spanish Government would benefit. With all respect to her, I do not agree. I do not believe that the chief sources of supply from which presumably she imagines the Spanish Government would draw their material, namely, France and Russia—I will come to the position of this country in a moment—would counter-balance what could be done by the fully-armed dictator Powers, Germany and Italy.
As regards this country, it is no secret, and the House is well aware that our armament firms are fully occupied with our own rearmament. I may tell what is

certainly not another secret, that at the Foreign Office we have difficulty in securing the fulfilment of contracts for certain countries for whom we have for a long time been supplying arms. We were fully alive to the facts when we agreed to the existing scheme, and we sought to find a means of dealing with the possibility of intervention by air. I need only state the problem for hon. Members to realise its immense complexity. We should have had to devise supervision over air ports within 1,000 miles radius of Spain, which would require such a prodigious organisation that it was clearly beyond our immediate capacity. As to the reports of machines flying into Spain, I have seen reports and rumours of aeroplanes flying over France, but I have heard nothing of that matter from the French Government, nor, so far as I am aware, have the French Government reported it to the Non-Intervention Committee. I can say to the House that we are faced with two alternatives, and that in either case this air problem was particularly difficult. We were faced with either having no scheme at all or accepting the scheme oas it was and trying to deal with the air problem.
The hon. Gentleman says, "What are you going to do if this kind of intervention grows to enormous proportions?" I agree that if that should happen, a new and very grave situation would arise which we should have to consider. I would add that I do not think that it will happen, for technical reasons which I do not propose to outline to the House at length, but if it were to happen and if it were to detract from what we are trying to do in another sphere, we should have to consider the scheme in the light of the position. I beg the House to believe that the Government are doing their utmost to work the policy of nonintervention. I believe it is the policy which the country wishes to see carried out. I believe the country desires that this Spanish conflict shall not become a European conflict. The hon. Gentleman may say that there is danger, but that danger is very much less than it was. It has not gone. If the hon. Gentleman will consult the files of some of the foreign newspapers, he will see what the position is. My first responsibility is to do everything that a man can do to prevent this spark from the Spanish furnace lighting up Europe.
I believe with the House and the country that we should do all that we can to stop foreign intervention in this conflict and to bring the conflict, as a conflict, to an end. Can anything be done in the latter sphere? A few weeks ago I had hopes that action might be taken, but now passions seem to be mounting again. In my view that action can be successful only if the great Powers agree among themselves to try to influence the two sides in Spain. When the moment will come it is hard indeed for any man to say. Europe to-day must realise that this Spanish conflict is an opportunity for international effort. In the last few weeks, both the statesmen of the Little Entente at Belgrade, and the Belgian Foreign Secretary speaking in Brussels, all of them qualified to speak upon the international situation, thought that the tension had grown less in the last few months, and I agreed with them. It is tragic if the opportunity to secure an improvement in the general situation is to be destroyed by this Spanish tragedy, with all its attendant evils. I am confident that, were the necessary measure of collaboration forthcoming to help to bring this Spanish chapter to an end, we might see an entirely new European collaboration.
There is the position as it is at the present moment, and I would beg the House to believe that I am just as conscious as any hon. Member of the consequences of this Spanish civil strife. Perhaps I get more detailed reports than the Opposition can get, and they are not, believe me, all on one side. I am not going to attempt to draw up a balance-sheet. The Government occupy and must retain a more detached position in relation to this matter than other nations of Europe, and must use their whole influence to circumscribe the strife and limit its suffering, and one day, I trust, bring it to an end.

Orders of the Day — LONDON OMNIBUS DISPUTE.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I want to turn the attention of the House away from foreign affairs to affairs nearer home. With a due sense of responsibility I gave notice of my intention on the Adjournment to raise the question of the omnibus dispute,

which has now been going on for very nearly six days. As we are adjourning for something like a fortnight I thought it would be open to misinterpretation by the great public outside if this House ignored its existence and gave the Minister no opportunity to make a statement. Of course, I realise the difficulty of his position, as a Court of Inquiry has been set up. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position, at any rate, to make a statement as to the interim report of that Committee, and it is right and proper that it should not appear for the first time in the Press but that it should be made in the House of Commons.
There are only two or three points to which I would like to refer. There are three parties to this dispute. First there are the men concerned. I would like to remind the House. that they are the very cream of London's workmen; there is a very severe test for entering the company's service, not only for the drivers but for the men, and it is perhaps not going too far to say that a very large number of the working class in London become the servants of the public on the omnibuses. Secondly, there is the London Passenger Transport Board. I know both Lord Ashfield and Mr. Pick, and there is no question of their ability and their administrative capacity. The third party to the dispute is the great London travelling public. It has often been said that there is no one more patient than the London public. Anybody who sees the lively struggle at the various stopping places, even at ordinary times, knows how good-tempered and patient they are. They have endured great suffering without complaint during the last few days, and they at any rate should have a tribute paid to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday referred to the testing time of democracy. Any stranger visiting London would hardly have been conscious that we were going through a very serious and important dispute affecting a very large number of men employed in London services. We can carry on in our difficulties in the utmost good temper.
Just one word in conclusion. It has been said in criticism of my raising this question in the House that it really is not a matter for the Government or for Parliament, but it is well to remind the House that Parliament deliberately, first


in 1924 and again in 1931, passed special legislation affecting London, and therefore Parliament cannot divorce itself from its responsibility. Lastly, I would say that this is no mere local dispute. It affects a population of 9,000,000—over one-quarter of the whole population of the whole of England and Wales. Traffic is the very life-blood of a modern city, and it is vital to London, and so we hope that a settlement will be arrived at and that it will be on just lines, and that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman tonight will prove satisfactory.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I believe that the Court of Inquiry has finished its sessions and we shall no doubt hear what its Report is before we break up for the Adjournment. But I would ask this House, in the light of any statement the Minister may make, not to enter into a controversial discussion on the merits or otherwise of the dispute. But, sorry as we all are for the dispute, it is there, and we want to get it settled by the people most competent to settle it, with the best conditions for the men and the public. I would ask the House therefore, after hearing the Minister's statement, to permit the negotiations to continue in the hope that the dispute will be quickly settled.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sure the hon. Member has interpreted the wish of the whole House, but the hon. Baronet has given me an opportunity to inform the House that I have received from the Court of Inquiry an Interim Report of their conclusions, and I wish to thank them for the expedition which they have shown. I will not read the whole Report because it will be available in the Vote Office; it will be sufficient if I read the conclusions, which begin in paragraph 5:
5. On the statements and evidence submitted to the Court we have reached the following conclusions which we feel should be placed before you forthwith:

(a) There is a widespread feeling amongst the London Central Omnibus workers that their work is unduly exacting in its conditions and injurious to their health in its effect;
(b) the conditions chiefly complained of are: speeding up of services, too frequent alteration of schedules, irregularity of meal times, and, in some cases, inadequacy of standing times and of facilities at terminals;

(c) conditions of employment have hitherto been governed by the terms of the Agreement of 1932 made before the establishment of the Transport Board, which Agreement was in its nature experimental and was brought into existence before the present intensified system of working was in full operation.
6. We are of opinion that some of the schedules which have originated since the 1932 Agreement, while strictly in accord with its terms, operate somewhat onerously upon the men and are not such as could have been accurately foreseen by the parties at the time the Agreement was reached.
7. It is agreed between the parties that in all the matters raised in the discussions that have taken place for the modification of the 1932 Agreement, other than the men's demand for a seven and a-half hour day, accommodation could have been found between the men's Union and the Transport Board.
8. We consequently feel that negotiations for the settlement of matters in difference, other than that of a reduction of the working day, should proceed at once in accordance with the method ordinarily adopted between the parties.
9. As regards the claim for a seven and a-half hour day, which is based fundamentally on the grounds of injury to health, the evidence placed before us is inconclusive. Nevertheless, we are of opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for further investigation by a properly qualified body specially constituted to deal forthwith with this important matter.
Should such a body find that the complaints as to injury to health made upon behalf of the men are substantiated, then, in our judgment, immediate and appropriate steps should be taken, either by reduction of hours and/or by such other measures as may be agreed, to meet the position.
We recognise that any recommendation under this head must inevitably place an increased liability upon the Transport Board; but, should satisfactory proof of the need for remedy be forthcoming, we cannot but think that the Transport Board would be assured of the goodwill of the public when budgeting for any extra cost involved.
On receiving the Report the following letter was at once sent to the parties concerned:
I am directed by the Minister of Labour to enclose a copy of the Interim Report of the Court of Inquiry concerning the stoppage of the London Central Omnibus Services, 1937, and to express the hope that you will give immediate consideration to the position in the light of the Court's Report.
I think further comment at the moment, as the hon. Member has just said, would be inadvisable, except to say that the House will, I know, join with me in expressing the hope that the consideration of these conclusions may take place in


the spirit of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, and that a happy issue may speedily be found.

Orders of the Day — ARMAMENTS (SHELL CONTRACTS).

6.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I make no apology for raising once again the subject of profiteering in armaments, with special reference to shells. It is the duty of an Opposition, and especially of a Labour party Opposition, to maintain a most vigilant eye upon the operations of a Government which believes in a system of private profit, and which proposes to spend some £1,500,000,000 of public money with contracting firms in this country. While this Debate takes place under rather cramped conditions as to time, it is necessary to remind the House of the conditions which emerged in the last War. Those conditions, we believe, threaten the nation once again. I would remind the House of the evidence placed before the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms—official evidence supplied from the Ministry of Munitions of War. On page 120 they discuss the movements in price of some half-dozen kinds of shell. I take one, the 4.5 inch shell.
The Ministry estimated that the average cost of production of that shell, as at January, 1916, was from 27s. to 29s. They proposed to the armament manufacturers that the manufacturers should charge 34s., leaving them a very reasonable and adequate margin of profit. Messrs. Armstrongs did not charge 34s.; they had been charging 47s. Messrs. Vickers were charging 52s.; Messrs. Firth, 6os.; Messrs. Hadfield, 63s: 9d.; and the National Projectile Company no less than 65s., for a shell the cost of production of which was from 27s. to 29s. We have the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, on 23rd June, 1921, in this House, in reviewing the work of the Ministry of Munitions, and especially the work performed by that great public servant whose services have not, so far, been adequately recognised in this country—I refer to the right hon. Dr. Addison—said, with reference to the 4.5-inch shell, that when the Ministry of

Munitions set up their national factory these shells were being charged to the Government at an average price by private manufacturers of 54s. The Ministry of Munitions got that price down to 29s., and in pretty similar ratio, although not to quite such a large degree, in the case of other classes of shells a considerable reduction was secured.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that Dr. Addison and the Ministry of Munitions succeeded in breaking the arms rings prices and saved the nation no less than £90,000,000. If that is disputed, I refer hon. Members to the evidence on the Committee of Public Accounts of 18th May, 1916, page 176, where the precise reductions that were secured on shells as the result of Ministerial action is stated. These prices justify to the hilt what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said in the House and what Dr. Addison has said elsewhere. Hon. Members who want the story in detail may also look up Dr. Addison's two volumes, "Politics from Within." They have a title of some political significance, but the preface of commendation was written by the late Lord Carson, who was also conversant with the facts. Dr. Addison assures us that 18-pounder shell cases were being produced by the largest armaments firms at 23s. each and by smaller firms at 12S. 6d., but the Government got the price down to as low a figure as 9s. 1d.
The same ramp has begun. It is not so fast and furious, but it has begun. I have been putting questions to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence regarding increases in the retail price of steel joists, for example. The Minister replies that manufacturers have only increased their prices by 10 per cent., but merchants in the city have issued circulars to the firms with whom they deal intimating increased prices of 100 per cent., and I know that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is seriously perturbed about the rake-off that is going on between the producers of these steel goods and the merchants who handle them. Since these questions have been put, it is remarkable that no further quotations are now being given in these weekly circulars by the merchant firms which are supplying the trade. I have here a circular from a firm of outside


brokers—I will not advertise them by name—headed:
Further rise coming in base metals.
How you can participate.
Facilities we oiler.
They give details and then say:
In addition, there is the vast sum that is going to be spent by the Government upon our defence forces.
In other words be in time. Be in time while the going is good. They give illustrations of how, on the Metal Exchange, copper moves £2 a ton, and sometimes more, in a day and tin frequently has an even bigger rise.
Very big profits, therefore, can be made and can be made quickly.
The "Economist" last week gave some particulars of the share prices of most of our big armament firms. I do not know that it would be quite fair to quote the increase in value of these shares compared with a year ago, because many of these firms had suffered a very considerable devaluation in their shares during the depression. Nevertheless, it is the fact that the Whitehead Iron and Steel Company's £1 shares are standing in the market at 135s., Vickers 10s. shares at 29S., and Babcock and Wilcox £1. shares at.46s. 10½d. Most of the shares are standing at a very considerable premium.
Into the maelstrom of profiteering and expectation of profiteering comes a firm called Ransomes and Rapier. Much of the story is now common knowledge and is no longer the subject of controversy. I will endeavour to state, in a series of propositions, what I think is common ground between ourselves and the Government. If the Secretary of State for War disputes any of the points which I am about to make, I shall be happy to endeavour to justify them on the spot, but there is no use in wasting time flogging points that are already the subject of general agreement. (1) This firm was invited by the War Office to assist in the production of shells. They were so invited as far back as July, 1935, but specifically they were invited in May and July of 1936. (2) This is an old estalished and reputable firm which made, so I am informed, 111,000 shells during the last War, plus 500,000 base plates, plus very considerable quantities of what is called the Stokes Gun. (3) The firm said, in reply to the War Office, that they were agreeable to produce shells upon

a no profit, and no loss basis. That is to say, they did not desire to make a profit, neither did they desire to suffer a loss. (4) They finally submitted a price. The word "price" may be disputed by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am willing to call it an estimate, if he wishes. They finally submitted a figure on 12th October of 17s. 11d. for each 3.45 shell. (5) The Director of Army Contracts, on 24th August, 1936, suggested that an interview should take place between representatives of Ransomes and Rapier and of the War Office at Caxton House to discuss the financial basis of the contract. This is important. It was arranged by telephone. As far as I can gather, there is no documentary evidence available upon this point, but it was arranged by telephone that a meeting should take place on a particular date.
Mr. Stokes, the managing director of Ransomes and Rapier, appeared and saw a Dr. Rowall. Dr. Rowall had on the table before him the tender or estimate of 175. 11d. submitted by Ransomes and Rapier. This was on 20th October. Dr. Rowall, I am informed, is an officer of the technical branch of the Industrial Planning Department. At this interview Mr. Stokes says that he informed Dr. Rowall that in the 17s. 11d. was included a 10 per cent. cover for contingencies, in other words, for the possibility of loss, and that Dr. Rowall said, "What about the cost of the building?" In reply to that Mr. Stokes said that the cost of the building was covered, and would be covered, in the price of 17S. 11d. On 24th October the Director of Army Contracts was informed in writing that an interview had taken place between Mr. Stokes and Dr. Rowall, although the details of the interview were not communicated to the Director of Army Contracts. Four days afterwards, and without further inquiry or the slightest attempt to elucidate any dubious points, Ransomes and Rapier were told that their offer was turned down. That is the point where the cardinal blunder was made. There was no inquiry as to what precisely Mr. Stokes meant by his price of 17s. 11d.; the offer was simply turned down.
Several explanations have been offered why this offer of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier's was rejected by the War Office. First we were told that it was rejected


partly on the ground of the exceptional vulnerability of the Ipswich site to German bombing planes. That is a post facto discovery, because the War Office invited Messrs. Ramsomes and Rapier to tender for the contract knowing that their buildings were already at Ipswich and, secondly, after the shell offer was turned down the same alleged vulnerably situated factory was invited to tender for tanks. The argument of vulnerability is, therefore, insufficient and inadequate to explain the facts. In the second place, we have an explanation of another character. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office on 24th March that the tender of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier of 17s. 11d. was higher at that time than the price at which contracts had been entered into. Then we were told on the same day by the Secretary of State for War that the price of 17s. 11d. was "much too low" and that the shells would cost more than Ransomes and Rapier anticipated. It could not be too high and also too low on the same day, and the same contradictory arguments be legitimately used for rejection of the tender. As a matter of fact the statement that the price was "much too low" was repeated by the Financial Secretary to the War Office on 21st April in this House. Therefore, we had a declaration made twice that the Ransomes and Rapier tender of 17s. 11d. was turned down because the price was "much too low."
We also had another reason, if it can be called a reason, a somewhat witless, or, to put it more politely, an artless suggestion, made by the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford). He said that the managing director of Ransomes and Rapier had been a Socialist candidate at the last election. I am sure the Secretary of State for War did not thank the hon. Member for Rusholme for that brain wave of assistance. I will do the right hon. Gentleman the credit to believe that no such consideration ever entered his mind, but it is indicative of the type of mind on the Government benches that it would be prepared to import political considerations into what is purely an economic question and purely a question of fact as to the reason why the tender of 17s. 11d. was turned down.
We were also told that Mr. Stokes of Ransomes and Rapier had really intended that, while his price was 17s. 11d., the

War Office should be responsible for any eventual loss which might arise. We have been told that repeatedly. That argument could have been instantly dissipated by inquiry of Ransomes and Rapier as to what their 17s. 11d. offer meant. Both prior to and subsequent to the tender they said that they did not want to make a profit, nor did they want to make a loss. Surely when the 17s. 11d. tender was submitted, it was the duty of the War Office to inquire directly at Ransomes and Rapier if there was any doubt in their minds as to what the 17s. 11d. price covered. Finally, that argument about the possible eventual liabilities of the War Office was dissipated in my presence at the War Office when Mr. Stokes offered to give the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in writing, an assurance that he was prepared to go on now and to produce the shells at 17s.11d. He was prepared to give a written guarantee to the War Office that he would not ask the War Office to help to bear any loss which might fall upon him at the price of 17s. 11d.
Now I come to what may he more controversial matters between the Secretary of State for War and ourselves. Let me return to the question of the price of 17s. 11d. and of what it is composed. I understand that the new buildings which Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier would require to put up for the production of these shells would cost something in the neighbourhood of £7,000, and that the plant which the Government would require to instal would cost about £30,000. On these figures I take it there is no substantial difference between us. According to Mr. Stokes, his production engineers and the people who make the estimates, the price of 17s. 11d. was made up in the following manner: 15s. 5d. for each shell; 10d. to cover possibilities of rejects—I suppose no firm could undertake that all its production would be ma per cent. efficient—and 1s. 8d. to cover the cost of buildings. If Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier had got the contract in October, 1936, and even if it had taken the Government 14 months to give them the plant, so that they could not start production until December, 1937, they could produce 1, 000 shells a week, or 100,000 shells by December, 1939. With the 1s. 8d. a shell surplus which they provided for in their tender, they would have been able to cover the


whole cost of the building in these two years.
There remains the question of the cost of the plant, about which the right hon. Gentleman made so much at Question Time a few days ago. I ask him to stop me if I quote from or refer to any document which I ought not to mention in public, but according to the special conditions issued by the War Office to contractors, on which the tender was based, the plant was to be owned by the War Office for a period of six years after it was installed. I take it that that is a common form of special condition, and that it applies to other firms besides Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier. I take it that the War Office would have the ownership of the plant for six years. At the end of those six years, it is not clear what would be done with the plant. It would have to be maintained in a state of efficiency, and be ready if the War Office should desire a continuance of the contract for the supply of shells. I am dealing for the moment solely with the ownership of the plant. It appears that the plant was to be provided by the War Office as they were providing plant for other new firms producing shells on a similar basis. The plant was to be maintained by the firm, and for six years the War Office was to be the owner of it. Before we could arrive at what would have been the gain or profit to the State through the acceptance of the offer made by Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, we should require to know what other firms in similar circumstances have been charging, are charging, or are going to charge the War Office for shells.
If there are cheaper tenders, we ought to know the names of the firms and the prices. It is idle to say that this is a grave public matter in which secrecy is of such importance that we are not to be given this information. We shall get to know it in any case at the Public Accounts Committee. We shall get to know it sooner or later, and very much sooner than later, and it would be far better now to have a frank and full disclosure of the comparative and competitive prices tendered by other similarly-circumstanced firms who are making a profit. Let us know whether our statement is correct or not, that the War Office is accepting tenders from other firms at

something in the neighbourhood of 22s.—not 17s. 11d. If the War Office could save 4s. per shell, that would mean, on 100,000 shells, in two years' time, a saving of £20,000 to the State in the cost of the plant. If 150,000 shells are manufactured, then the War Office will save £30,000. We ask here that the right hon. Gentleman shall give us the fullest information, consistent with his duty as Secretary of State for War, first as to the conditions upon which other firms have got this plant, and secondly, the amount of the tenders which they have submitted.
If the right hon. Gentleman gives us that information, he will not be doing anything which is not done by other Departments of State. In the Naval Estimates we get particulars of the amounts which the Admiralty are giving for extensions of plant and works, for the manufacture of armoured plate, guns, and so on by private firms. We know that the Air Ministry are supplying shadow factories to private firms and putting down plant, and we know the amounts involved. Why should we not get similar information in this case? There is no purpose to be served by any policy of obscurantism here. I have never made any accusation against the right hon. Gentleman or his Department of graft or corruption or anything of that kind. That can all be wiped out, but what we do say is that a cardinal folly has been committed, a folly which, against the background of what happened M 1914–1918, is almost inexplicable. When we see the nation being robbed and plundered and cheated day after day, when the War Office know this as well as we do, when we realise that the capitalist system, which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends defend, depends upon profits, surely we are entitled to ask that a firm which comes forward with a new method of approach should, at least, have its tender used as a guide or a measuring rule by which to prevent profiteers from "soaking" the nation.
I do not wish to raise any political issues to-night. I never met Mr. Stokes until this matter was raised. I have no interest in the firm of Ransomes and Rapier, and neither, as far as I know, has any hon. Member on this side. But it is our duty in the public interest, as an Opposition, to see to it that the


national purse is not robbed, as we believe it is being robbed now, by private armament manufacturers. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to abandon any party advantage that there might appear to him to be in this matter and to let the House have the fullest possible information. Let us take whatever steps are available from now onwards to limit the plunder that is taking place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated £1,500,000,000 as the amount that will be required for rearmament. That would be the figure at the prices of six months ago, but at the prices of six months hence we may require to spend, not £1,500,000,000, but it may be £2,000,000,000 to get the same quantity of armaments. It would be idle to wait until it is too late, when the bills come in. It is when the tax collector goes round that the real import and purpose of this Ransomes and Rapier offer will become obvious to the nation, and we are giving the right hon. Gentleman to-night an opportunity to make the fullest pcssible explanation of the matter.

6.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): The right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks referred to the scandals that had taken place in the past, especially in the Great War, in regard to the vast profits that had been made out of the manufacture of arms. He will not expect me either to deny the statement or to defend all that happened in the course of the late War. Conditions are very different to-day from what they were then, largely because, owing to the shortage of supplies, especially at the beginning of the War, manufacturers were in a position to demand almost any profit they liked, and a part of our effort at the present time is so to prepare ourselves in time of peace that, should a similar catastrophe occur, we shall be in a stronger position to resist excessive demands on this nation. I cordially welcome the co-operation of the Opposition and of the right hon. Gentleman in carrying out this task. He stated that the vast programme upon which we are engaged imposed upon the Opposition the duty of watching closely in order to be sure that no excessive profits will be derived from it. I welcome the cooperation of the Opposition in that work, and I have no objection at all to any-

thing that the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon.
I hope that I shall be able to convince the House, as I am convinced myself, that the particular instance which he has brought to the notice of the House is one in which the War Office is not in any way to blame. I welcome his statement that he does not believe us to be actuated by any unworthy motive, that he is simply suggesting that we have missed a chance of doing a good piece of business in regard to the actual offer which was made, and that we should have brought into this business a firm which would have served us as a standard or as a watch-dog over other firms. With his account of the details of this transaction I am in the main in agreement, and also as to the facts, but there is one small detail which he omitted in the early stage of our negotiations with the firm. That was that their first letter, when they replied to my invitation, was to the effect that they did not wish to go into this business at all, that they disliked the idea of the manufacture of armaments and would prefer not to go into it. But later they reconsidered that position, and I think that fact should be borne in mind that they had a deep-rooted objection to this business, and that they would undertake it without any enthusiasm. We had to consider whether that lack of enthusiasm might lead to lack of efficiency as it usually does.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that entirely different excuses have been put forward from this side in order to account for the non-acceptance of the offer. He put it forward in a way that seemed to convince hon. Members behind him, and in a way that might have convinced anybody. He said that we first said the tender was too high and at the same time we said it was too low, and that it could not possibly be high or too low at the same time. It certainly looked at first sight as if that would be an impossible position. We were merely saying at that time, however, that we had then actually bought at a cheaper rate, but that when we took into consideration the sums that would have to be put down for the construction of the plant the figure that they gave was not a correct figure of costs. It was too low in that sense; not too low in the sense that we wanted to pay a higher price, but that it was not an accurate


estimate since it did not represent the price we should really have to pay.
The right hon. Gentleman said we also brought forward the excuse that Ipswich was in a position of vulnerability and that, therefore, we did not wish to buy shells from a place situated so near the coast, and that we then suggested to the firm that they should construct tanks. The vulnerability argument was one of many taking into consideration the fact that their price was not in any way better than that of the other firms, that, in fact, it was a little worse. However, we might have considered it; but when in addition to that we had to envisage the investment of a considerable sum of capital in a place where there was a danger of air attack, we preferred to take these things into consideration and look elsewhere for our supplies. The bulk of the work engaged in by this firm is heavy work in the nature of tanks, and I am under the impression that for the construction of tanks they would have not been under the necessity of setting up so much new plant, and that so much new construction would not have been necessary. It is, therefore, a perfectly logical position for us to say that while we were prepared to accept an offer—it seemed a very good offer—from Ipswich, other things being equal we preferred to look elsewhere for our supplies. I do not think the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushholme (Mr. Radford) the other day was intended in a way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested, although I agree that he generously stated he did not entertain the suspicion. I do not think that my hon. Friend meant that we refused to deal with a firm, the managing director of which had stood as a candidate. I am convinced that that point had no influence over the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, and I am sure he was not aware of the fact that he was a candidate.
As to the actual offers that were made, two were made by this firm, one for shell in bar and one for forged shell. I will deal with the one for shell made in bar. I will deal with shell made from bar because that is the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The quoted price per shell was 17s. 11d. Taking into consideration with that 17s. 11d. the £30,514, which was the estimated cost of the plant, the provision of shell would work out at the following rates: On the

basis of 40,000 shell, which is all that could be supplied now in the time—I quite agree that had it been taken earlier more could have been supplied—the price. would be 33s. 3d. per shell; on the basis of 65,000 shell being provided if the order had been given at once it would be 27s. 3d.; and on the basis of 150,000 it would be 22S., but 150,000 could not possibly be provided, even if the work had been given out in October, by the stipulated time.

Mr. Johnston: On single-shift working?

Mr. Cooper: All the contracts were made on the basis of a single shift, in order to have the power of expansion and, in emergency, to work double or treble shifts. I do not propose to reveal the names of the three other firms—though I shall be perfectly prepared to show them to hon. Members—whose names I have written down here, and the prices at which we were able to obtain shells from them. In the case of one of them, for 80,000 shell and with the cost of the plant £4,971, the quoted price per shell was. 18s. 2d. Taking into account the £4,971, those 80,000 shell would be produced at a price of 19s. 5d. The other two firms had the plant already and it was unnecessary to introduce any new plant. One of them would produce shell, 104,000, at 18s., and the other, 102,000 shell, at 21s. 6d. The last is the highest price, and it is still 6d. less that the price at which Ransomes and Rapier could have produced 150,000 shell.

Mr. Johnston: In the case of the firm which produced shell at 21s. 6d. you do not own the plant and have nothing to, do with it.

Mr. Cooper: That is perfectly true, but though we should have a lien on it, the firm could use the plant for their own purpose if we were not ordering goods from them. Still, while we should own the plant if we provided it, as I said earlier we thought it would be unwise to set up expensive War Office property in such a vulnerable situation as the East coast, and that is just the reason, or one of the reasons, why this offer was turned down.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not his belief that a firm which is charging him 21s. 6d. for shell and has the plant already, that price being only 6d. less than that of a


firm which requires to spend £30,000 on plant, must be exacting an unduly high profit?

Mr. Cooper: I am not in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman details as to why that figure is as high as it is. There are, no doubt, reasons for it. No doubt they had to introduce special tools. I have not got all those facts, but I will look into the position and let the right hon. Gentleman know. At any rate, the fact remains that that price, although it does seem high in comparison with other prices was, after allowing for the construction of plant, a lower price in fact than Ransomes and Rapier's price. I hope that we have now really disposed of this case. The suggestion, the perfectly fair suggestion, that we have missed a chance of doing good business is not, I think, borne out by the facts as they stand. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ever meant to put forward any other suggestion. A critic from one quarter did go so far as to say that we were deliberately opposed to the firm on the ground that all those who sit on these benches are in league with manufacturers and wish them to make as large profits as possible. Since that Debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has disposed of that suspicion, if it is suspicion, behind the right hon. Gentleman's questions.
It is almost impossible, when there is suddenly an enormously increased demand, for no matter what the commodity may be, to prevent considerable or large profits being made in that commodity. I am not very deeply impressed by the rise in armament manufacturers' shares to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. He must remember that for a long period those firms produced no dividends at all. They have been barely keeping their heads above water since the War, and when some demand for what they can supply returns, it is equally sound to expect an increase in the value of their shares. On the evidence, I do not believe that any large profit is being made out of armaments in this country, but I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government are

anxious to secure that no large profits shall be made. We shall always hope for the co-operation of the Opposition to assist us in that task.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt appreciate that we want to clear up this matter. He gave three instances of competitive and comparative prices at that time. One of them was a price of 21s. 6d. against the price of 17s. 11d. of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, plus plant, which would have brought the price up to 22s. May I ask whether the 21s. 6d. related to the production of shells by a German lathe which is now regarded by the War Office as unsatisfactory and is not encouraged in other firms? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in the case of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, he would still own the plant? Would that not be a very material financial factor in any sum? In the other cases he would not own the plant.

Mr. Cooper: Yes, I appreciate that we should own the plant, but we are not in a position in which we wish to own or to create property of value. I was not aware of the other point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but I understand that the story about the German lathe is not correct.

Mr. Johnston: Have you not been using a German lathe?

Mr. Cooper: I cannot answer that at the moment.

Mr. Johnston: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to answer immediately, but I suggest that he might make inquiries. I understand that the German lathe turns out a very much greater proportion of shell bodies, but is most unsatisfactory for other reasons.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes before Seven o'Clock, until Monday, 24th May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.